Iraqi crisis explained...
- Thread starter Jake the Dog
- Start date
time
Storage? I am Storage!
Some letters to the editor in The Sydney Morning Herald of February 4 2003:
Here we are, more than a decade after the first Gulf War, and we can all sleep a little better knowing what a great democracy Kuwait has become. Simon Mann
Why are Germany and France so opposed to this attack on Iraq? Perhaps it's the thousands upon thousands of graves littering their landscape that serve as a constant reminder of what really happens in a war. Tory Puglisi
Why should any country have to tolerate a neighbour that has a history of armed invasion, has used weapons of mass destruction, continues to store them and is threatening to use them again?
This madness should be stopped. The sooner Mexico and Canada stage a pre-emptive strike the better. Thomas Hanson
Here we are, more than a decade after the first Gulf War, and we can all sleep a little better knowing what a great democracy Kuwait has become. Simon Mann
Why are Germany and France so opposed to this attack on Iraq? Perhaps it's the thousands upon thousands of graves littering their landscape that serve as a constant reminder of what really happens in a war. Tory Puglisi
Why should any country have to tolerate a neighbour that has a history of armed invasion, has used weapons of mass destruction, continues to store them and is threatening to use them again?
This madness should be stopped. The sooner Mexico and Canada stage a pre-emptive strike the better. Thomas Hanson
From - http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg1600.cfm
Exerpt;
"Learning From the September 11 Attacks
The President is justified in applying preemptive military force to fight the war on terrorism. To fail to do so in spite of a threat of imminent attack would be to ignore the lessons learned from September 11 regarding the nature of the threats that face America in the 21st century. Before those attacks, U.S. authorities were aware of Osama bin Laden, his resources, and his hatred for America. They knew that he was a terrorist and that he had attacked America in the past. They were also aware that he was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan with the blessing of the Taliban regime.9 Despite this information, neither the United States nor the international community took decisive action to address bin Laden's imminent aggression.
In the post-September 11 world, such complacency is not acceptable. A series of lessons can be learned from the September 11 attacks and the initial prosecution of the war on terrorism. These lessons must be taken into consideration when future action against terrorists and terrorist states is contemplated.
LESSON #1: Deterrence alone is not sufficient to suppress aggression. Both Osama bin Laden and the Taliban could have predicted that the United States would respond to their attacks, yet they acted anyway. Although numerous reports and studies warned of the growing threat of catastrophic terrorism, the United States, for the most part, ignored those warnings. The activities of a worldwide, organized terrorist network were treated instead as criminal behavior.
The conclusion of recent studies10 has been that the risk of America's being struck with a weapon of mass destruction has increased: In other words, the effectiveness of deterrence has decreased. Such massive acts of terrorism could be perpetrated by an organization acting alone, an organization working with a nation, or a nation acting alone. It would be nearly impossible to deter all of these hostile entities, given that each state and each organization has a different motivation.
LESSON #2: Attacks can occur with little or no warning. The emergence of global communications, advances in technology, and the globalization of terrorism have significantly decreased the time it takes not only for a potential threat to be identified, but also for that threat to emerge as an act of aggression. In many instances, a specific threat may not be identified until the act of aggression has taken place, rendering preventive measures irrelevant.
In this world of drastically shortened time lines, it is essential that the President have the authority to act decisively, in short order, to defeat aggressors when a preponderance of information points to a threat of imminent attack. For example, although the President did not have information that al-Qaeda operatives were going to commandeer four passenger jets and use them as guided cruise missiles, there was ample evidence that threats to the United States would likely emerge from Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda, an organization responsible for past attacks on America, was present and supported by the Taliban.
LESSON #3: The use of a weapon of mass destruction is reasonably likely. On September 11, Americans were killed on a massive scale. Hostile entities increasingly view weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as political assets. North Korea may have two nuclear weapons;11 Iran has active chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs; and Iraq has not only active WMD programs, but also a history of using such weapons. All three countries have ballistic and cruise missile programs.12
Even terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaeda, are involved in developing and using WMD, as was evidenced by recently revealed videos in which al-Qaeda was experimenting with chemical weapons on dogs.13 Other reports link Osama bin Laden to the pursuit of a nuclear or radiological device.14 In 1995, terrorists in Japan used sarin gas to kill civilians in a Tokyo subway.
LESSON #4: A deadly synergy is created when hostile state and non-state agents conspire. While hostile states continue to threaten America and its interests, the threat of non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda, is growing. The danger increases when states and non-state actors work together. States have resources--including territory, finances, an international diplomatic presence, and trade--that non-state actors do not have. On the other hand, non-state actors are able to operate globally and can act largely undetected.
The reality of the 21st century is that a state like Iraq can harness its resources to develop a weapon of mass destruction and collude with non-state actors to deliver that weapon. This symbiotic relationship can operate undercover, possibly without the knowledge of the American government. Thus, a state hostile to the United States may appear to be acting within the bounds of normal diplomatic behavior while at the same time covertly supporting aggressive endeavors of its non-state allies.
LESSON #5: The future envisioned by America's enemies is incompatible with U.S. security. Prior to September 11, "soft diplomacy"--including multilateral arms control, aid incentives, and appeals to reason--was the preferred approach in dealing with hostile regimes. Although the ideals of those regimes and those of the West are in direct contrast, there was hope that, eventually, these despots would transform, fall, or simply discontinue their threatening activities. This policy continued as the approach of choice even though it has been demonstrably ineffective: North Korea continues to sell ballistic missiles, Iran continues to support terrorism, and Iraq continues to develop nuclear bombs.
On September 11, however, the idea that such hostile regimes and the United States could simultaneously pursue their respective interests lost all credibility. It was clear that America's enemies were willing to use unprovoked violence to achieve their objectives. The United States could no longer postpone acting against terrorists and nations that support them.
The Case Against Iraq
Under Saddam Hussein's rule, Iraq is a direct threat to the United States, its interests, and international peace and stability throughout the world. Although the United States had recognized Saddam as a threat ever since his invasion of Kuwait in 1991, it was never compelled to take decisive action against him. Given what the September 11 attacks revealed about the nature of the threats facing the nation, the United States can no longer afford to wait to take action regarding Iraq.
Saddam Hussein's hostility to U.S. interests, proven intent to act against those interests, WMD acquisition, continued pursuit of WMD, history of using WMD to achieve foreign policy objectives, and ties to international terrorists combine to make him uniquely dangerous to the United States. When his behavior is juxtaposed with the lessons learned through the September 11 attacks, it becomes clear that Saddam poses a threat that must be dealt with immediately. The foregoing five lessons apply to Iraq in the following ways:
APPLIED LESSON #1: Warnings have not deterred Iraq from overtly hostile actions that threaten the United States and its interests. Saddam Hussein, like so many other dictators throughout the world, is a danger to his own people. However, he is different in that he is also a direct and near-term threat to the United States and its interests. A recent video released by the U.S. Department of Defense showing Iraqi missiles firing on U.S. aircraft enforcing the United Nations no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq demonstrates Saddam's belligerence.15 President George W. Bush described the threat aptly when he said,
We can harbor no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages.16
This aggressive behavior is a clear attempt to dominate the region through intimidation and coercion. However, the most direct threat that Saddam poses to the United States is his WMD activities, coupled with his involvement in international terrorism. Many warnings and obstacles have been put forward to coerce Saddam into behaving in a less aggressive way, yet none have deterred him.
APPLIED LESSON #2: Iraq's ongoing development of weapons of mass destruction means that the United States or its interests could be the targets of an attack with little or no warning. 17Iraq has a 30-year history of WMD programs. In defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq continues to build and develop its biological, chemical, nuclear, and long-range ballistic missile programs. As stated so clearly by President Bush,
Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program--weapons design, procurement logs, experimental data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.18
Recent evidence, supported by a wealth of Iraqi government contracts, concludes that Iraq has at least 20 covert facilities where chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are produced.19 Moreover, Saddam Hussein continues to seek dual-use infrastructure to conceal his plans to build a robust WMD arsenal. As President Bush noted, recent reports contend that Saddam Hussein has aggressively sought to import thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes that can be reconfigured to enrich uranium, a necessary component for a nuclear device.20
APPLIED LESSON #3: Iraq's history of using WMD demonstrates the likelihood that it will use them in the future. 21 Iraq is not only actively seeking WMD, but also has a history of using them to achieve military aims. In 1982, Iraq used riot-control agents against Iranian attacks. From that point, Iraq quickly began to use more deadly agents, including mustard gas in 1983 and tabun in 1984, becoming the first nation to use a nerve agent in a war. The State Department lists 10 incidents of Iraqi chemical attacks between August 1983 and March 1988. All were launched against Iranian and Kurdish populations, resulting in casualty tolls in the tens of thousands.22
Not only did Saddam Hussein test his biological weapons on animals, especially large mammals, but it is suspected that testing was done on humans as well. Although Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz adamantly denies human testing, the United Nations Special Commission, known as UNSCOM, reported that investigative teams discovered two human-size inhalation chambers.23 Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter explained the program in detail. In 1995, according to Ritter, live tests of binary biological and chemical weapons were conducted on nearly 50 subjects taken from Abu Ghaib prison.24
APPLIED LESSON #4: Iraq's aggression and ties to international terrorism comprise a deadly combination that must be confronted. 25 U.N. Security Council Resolutions 687 and 1373 prohibit Saddam Hussein from supporting terrorism or allowing terrorist cells and organizations to operate within the boundaries of Iraq. Yet Saddam continues to flout these resolutions. When President Bush made his case against Iraq to the U.N. General Assembly, he cited several instances in which Iraq was found to be involved in terrorist acts. According to President Bush,
in violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.26
Recognized by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, Iraq is believed to provide shelter to several terrorist groups, including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) and several Palestinian-sponsored groups responsible for deadly attacks on Israel. More ominously, Saddam Hussein overtly provides money to relatives of terrorist suicide bombers sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Through graduated rewards, this program actively encourages these suicide murderers. Reward amounts are linked to the injury sustained by each bomber; dying as a "martyr" receives the greatest reward. Furthermore, testimonies obtained from defected Iraqi military officers describe an elite training facility in Iraq commonly referred to as Salman Pak, where Arabs with terrorist inclinations can receive extensive training.27
APPLIED LESSON #5: Iraq's blatant disregard for its 1991 cease-fire agreement makes it clear that its vision of the future is incompatible with America's security. Saddam Hussein has defied at least 16 Security Council resolutions, including the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that should have ended hostilities between the U.S.-led United Nations coalition and Iraq.28 Such flagrant violations--including his refusal to comply with weapons inspectors; his continued development of robust biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs; and his efforts to rearm Iraq through an elaborate oil-for-arms smuggling ring--pose a grave threat to the United States, its allies, and its interests in the Middle East.
The list of Saddam's systematic violations of Security Council resolutions includes disregarding resolutions that required him to cease the torture and unnecessary imprisonment of opposition groups; to provide for the immediate repatriation of prisoners of war and other political detainees; to cease amassing and destroy all chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programs and associated infrastructure; to cease sheltering terrorists and terrorist groups; and to allow for monitoring and inspection to verify Iraqi compliance. He has complied with none of these resolutions."
End.
I apologise for the length. One of the Mods can edit it if they wish. I found it very interesting and right on point.
Exerpt;
"Learning From the September 11 Attacks
The President is justified in applying preemptive military force to fight the war on terrorism. To fail to do so in spite of a threat of imminent attack would be to ignore the lessons learned from September 11 regarding the nature of the threats that face America in the 21st century. Before those attacks, U.S. authorities were aware of Osama bin Laden, his resources, and his hatred for America. They knew that he was a terrorist and that he had attacked America in the past. They were also aware that he was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan with the blessing of the Taliban regime.9 Despite this information, neither the United States nor the international community took decisive action to address bin Laden's imminent aggression.
In the post-September 11 world, such complacency is not acceptable. A series of lessons can be learned from the September 11 attacks and the initial prosecution of the war on terrorism. These lessons must be taken into consideration when future action against terrorists and terrorist states is contemplated.
LESSON #1: Deterrence alone is not sufficient to suppress aggression. Both Osama bin Laden and the Taliban could have predicted that the United States would respond to their attacks, yet they acted anyway. Although numerous reports and studies warned of the growing threat of catastrophic terrorism, the United States, for the most part, ignored those warnings. The activities of a worldwide, organized terrorist network were treated instead as criminal behavior.
The conclusion of recent studies10 has been that the risk of America's being struck with a weapon of mass destruction has increased: In other words, the effectiveness of deterrence has decreased. Such massive acts of terrorism could be perpetrated by an organization acting alone, an organization working with a nation, or a nation acting alone. It would be nearly impossible to deter all of these hostile entities, given that each state and each organization has a different motivation.
LESSON #2: Attacks can occur with little or no warning. The emergence of global communications, advances in technology, and the globalization of terrorism have significantly decreased the time it takes not only for a potential threat to be identified, but also for that threat to emerge as an act of aggression. In many instances, a specific threat may not be identified until the act of aggression has taken place, rendering preventive measures irrelevant.
In this world of drastically shortened time lines, it is essential that the President have the authority to act decisively, in short order, to defeat aggressors when a preponderance of information points to a threat of imminent attack. For example, although the President did not have information that al-Qaeda operatives were going to commandeer four passenger jets and use them as guided cruise missiles, there was ample evidence that threats to the United States would likely emerge from Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda, an organization responsible for past attacks on America, was present and supported by the Taliban.
LESSON #3: The use of a weapon of mass destruction is reasonably likely. On September 11, Americans were killed on a massive scale. Hostile entities increasingly view weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as political assets. North Korea may have two nuclear weapons;11 Iran has active chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs; and Iraq has not only active WMD programs, but also a history of using such weapons. All three countries have ballistic and cruise missile programs.12
Even terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaeda, are involved in developing and using WMD, as was evidenced by recently revealed videos in which al-Qaeda was experimenting with chemical weapons on dogs.13 Other reports link Osama bin Laden to the pursuit of a nuclear or radiological device.14 In 1995, terrorists in Japan used sarin gas to kill civilians in a Tokyo subway.
LESSON #4: A deadly synergy is created when hostile state and non-state agents conspire. While hostile states continue to threaten America and its interests, the threat of non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda, is growing. The danger increases when states and non-state actors work together. States have resources--including territory, finances, an international diplomatic presence, and trade--that non-state actors do not have. On the other hand, non-state actors are able to operate globally and can act largely undetected.
The reality of the 21st century is that a state like Iraq can harness its resources to develop a weapon of mass destruction and collude with non-state actors to deliver that weapon. This symbiotic relationship can operate undercover, possibly without the knowledge of the American government. Thus, a state hostile to the United States may appear to be acting within the bounds of normal diplomatic behavior while at the same time covertly supporting aggressive endeavors of its non-state allies.
LESSON #5: The future envisioned by America's enemies is incompatible with U.S. security. Prior to September 11, "soft diplomacy"--including multilateral arms control, aid incentives, and appeals to reason--was the preferred approach in dealing with hostile regimes. Although the ideals of those regimes and those of the West are in direct contrast, there was hope that, eventually, these despots would transform, fall, or simply discontinue their threatening activities. This policy continued as the approach of choice even though it has been demonstrably ineffective: North Korea continues to sell ballistic missiles, Iran continues to support terrorism, and Iraq continues to develop nuclear bombs.
On September 11, however, the idea that such hostile regimes and the United States could simultaneously pursue their respective interests lost all credibility. It was clear that America's enemies were willing to use unprovoked violence to achieve their objectives. The United States could no longer postpone acting against terrorists and nations that support them.
The Case Against Iraq
Under Saddam Hussein's rule, Iraq is a direct threat to the United States, its interests, and international peace and stability throughout the world. Although the United States had recognized Saddam as a threat ever since his invasion of Kuwait in 1991, it was never compelled to take decisive action against him. Given what the September 11 attacks revealed about the nature of the threats facing the nation, the United States can no longer afford to wait to take action regarding Iraq.
Saddam Hussein's hostility to U.S. interests, proven intent to act against those interests, WMD acquisition, continued pursuit of WMD, history of using WMD to achieve foreign policy objectives, and ties to international terrorists combine to make him uniquely dangerous to the United States. When his behavior is juxtaposed with the lessons learned through the September 11 attacks, it becomes clear that Saddam poses a threat that must be dealt with immediately. The foregoing five lessons apply to Iraq in the following ways:
APPLIED LESSON #1: Warnings have not deterred Iraq from overtly hostile actions that threaten the United States and its interests. Saddam Hussein, like so many other dictators throughout the world, is a danger to his own people. However, he is different in that he is also a direct and near-term threat to the United States and its interests. A recent video released by the U.S. Department of Defense showing Iraqi missiles firing on U.S. aircraft enforcing the United Nations no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq demonstrates Saddam's belligerence.15 President George W. Bush described the threat aptly when he said,
We can harbor no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages.16
This aggressive behavior is a clear attempt to dominate the region through intimidation and coercion. However, the most direct threat that Saddam poses to the United States is his WMD activities, coupled with his involvement in international terrorism. Many warnings and obstacles have been put forward to coerce Saddam into behaving in a less aggressive way, yet none have deterred him.
APPLIED LESSON #2: Iraq's ongoing development of weapons of mass destruction means that the United States or its interests could be the targets of an attack with little or no warning. 17Iraq has a 30-year history of WMD programs. In defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq continues to build and develop its biological, chemical, nuclear, and long-range ballistic missile programs. As stated so clearly by President Bush,
Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program--weapons design, procurement logs, experimental data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.18
Recent evidence, supported by a wealth of Iraqi government contracts, concludes that Iraq has at least 20 covert facilities where chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are produced.19 Moreover, Saddam Hussein continues to seek dual-use infrastructure to conceal his plans to build a robust WMD arsenal. As President Bush noted, recent reports contend that Saddam Hussein has aggressively sought to import thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes that can be reconfigured to enrich uranium, a necessary component for a nuclear device.20
APPLIED LESSON #3: Iraq's history of using WMD demonstrates the likelihood that it will use them in the future. 21 Iraq is not only actively seeking WMD, but also has a history of using them to achieve military aims. In 1982, Iraq used riot-control agents against Iranian attacks. From that point, Iraq quickly began to use more deadly agents, including mustard gas in 1983 and tabun in 1984, becoming the first nation to use a nerve agent in a war. The State Department lists 10 incidents of Iraqi chemical attacks between August 1983 and March 1988. All were launched against Iranian and Kurdish populations, resulting in casualty tolls in the tens of thousands.22
Not only did Saddam Hussein test his biological weapons on animals, especially large mammals, but it is suspected that testing was done on humans as well. Although Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz adamantly denies human testing, the United Nations Special Commission, known as UNSCOM, reported that investigative teams discovered two human-size inhalation chambers.23 Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter explained the program in detail. In 1995, according to Ritter, live tests of binary biological and chemical weapons were conducted on nearly 50 subjects taken from Abu Ghaib prison.24
APPLIED LESSON #4: Iraq's aggression and ties to international terrorism comprise a deadly combination that must be confronted. 25 U.N. Security Council Resolutions 687 and 1373 prohibit Saddam Hussein from supporting terrorism or allowing terrorist cells and organizations to operate within the boundaries of Iraq. Yet Saddam continues to flout these resolutions. When President Bush made his case against Iraq to the U.N. General Assembly, he cited several instances in which Iraq was found to be involved in terrorist acts. According to President Bush,
in violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.26
Recognized by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, Iraq is believed to provide shelter to several terrorist groups, including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) and several Palestinian-sponsored groups responsible for deadly attacks on Israel. More ominously, Saddam Hussein overtly provides money to relatives of terrorist suicide bombers sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Through graduated rewards, this program actively encourages these suicide murderers. Reward amounts are linked to the injury sustained by each bomber; dying as a "martyr" receives the greatest reward. Furthermore, testimonies obtained from defected Iraqi military officers describe an elite training facility in Iraq commonly referred to as Salman Pak, where Arabs with terrorist inclinations can receive extensive training.27
APPLIED LESSON #5: Iraq's blatant disregard for its 1991 cease-fire agreement makes it clear that its vision of the future is incompatible with America's security. Saddam Hussein has defied at least 16 Security Council resolutions, including the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that should have ended hostilities between the U.S.-led United Nations coalition and Iraq.28 Such flagrant violations--including his refusal to comply with weapons inspectors; his continued development of robust biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs; and his efforts to rearm Iraq through an elaborate oil-for-arms smuggling ring--pose a grave threat to the United States, its allies, and its interests in the Middle East.
The list of Saddam's systematic violations of Security Council resolutions includes disregarding resolutions that required him to cease the torture and unnecessary imprisonment of opposition groups; to provide for the immediate repatriation of prisoners of war and other political detainees; to cease amassing and destroy all chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programs and associated infrastructure; to cease sheltering terrorists and terrorist groups; and to allow for monitoring and inspection to verify Iraqi compliance. He has complied with none of these resolutions."
End.
I apologise for the length. One of the Mods can edit it if they wish. I found it very interesting and right on point.
Jake the Dog
Storage is cool
I found it interesting too, but sadly I see that some of it is way off the mark. No where does it offer any consideration as to why America is a target for attacks.
Jake,
I hear you but I'm afraid that aspect of it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Although it's easy to think the creation of a Palestinian State would resolve most of the problem, I fear it would only be the beginning of the end and not the end itself. The only thing that would end the hostility altogether would a complete withdrawal of all U.S. support for the governments of the Middle East (including Israel) and an end to the U.S. military presence in the area. Even then there is no guarantee that reprisals or the hate would come to an end. Not to mention that such a unilateral and unconditional withdrawal would likely create as many enemies as it does friends. So... what to do?
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
You are right, Mr Homer. Complete withdrawl is not an option. Once you are in the cage with the crocodiles, you can't just turn your back and walk away. Indeed, what to do? I can't see a whole answer, but the first step has to be to get serious about being even-handed, and stop turning a blind eye to Israeli atrocities. And lay down the law to the stupid damn Arab dumb-bombers.
Has to get worse before it gets better, did you say? I shouldn;t be surprised.
Has to get worse before it gets better, did you say? I shouldn;t be surprised.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
You can't make things true by simply saying them. Some coherent logical reasoning wouldn't go astray, not to mention adherence to facts.
For example, the "No-Fly" zones have nothing to do with the UN.
Of course, the US may yet reveal something (anything) that shows Iraq is still a genuine threat, in which case there will be little argument from anyone that drastic action is required.
But adventures in imagination just don't cut it when you're about to kill a hundred thousand people or so.
For example, the "No-Fly" zones have nothing to do with the UN.
Of course, the US may yet reveal something (anything) that shows Iraq is still a genuine threat, in which case there will be little argument from anyone that drastic action is required.
But adventures in imagination just don't cut it when you're about to kill a hundred thousand people or so.
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
Huh? It's never stopped anyone in the past. Time, I really must speak to you about this deeply ingrained streak of ... I'm sorry to use such a hash word, but no other will fit ... of rationality. In international realpolitik, adventures in imagination is the stuff what rulez. Read zome hiztory.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
The Australian Senate just passed a motion of no confidence in the country's prime minister. This has no legal ramifications because he doesn't have a minority government, but is nonetheless indicative of how the citizenry view his enthusiastic support for the US Administration's plans of unilateral action against Iraq.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
David,
That's a very comprehensive article. But I don't accept that containment and nuclear deterrence are necessarily synonymous. To be synonymous, the threat of a nuclear response to aggression must be credible. The authors do not address how Saddam could be contained other than through nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence would not, imo, be credible when it comes to Iraq. I can't imagine the U.S. ever using nuclear weapons against Iraq except in retaliation for a direct attack against the U.S.. Short of a direct attack upon America, deterrence is nothing more than a high stakes game of bluff. And Saddam is notorious for calling the bluff of the world. A fact which the authors fail to address as they bend over backwards to apologise for his past sins. The notion that Saddam is a reasonable fellow who only starts wars when he thinks he can win them is a no-brainer. After all, who would start a war thinking otherwise?
So just how would containment be achieved? The authors don't say. Nor do they address Iraq's state sponsorship of terrorism. I know, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But we in the U.S. are concerned with those whom we define as terrorists, that is those who wish to kill Americans, and that is after all our primary concern.
That's a very comprehensive article. But I don't accept that containment and nuclear deterrence are necessarily synonymous. To be synonymous, the threat of a nuclear response to aggression must be credible. The authors do not address how Saddam could be contained other than through nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence would not, imo, be credible when it comes to Iraq. I can't imagine the U.S. ever using nuclear weapons against Iraq except in retaliation for a direct attack against the U.S.. Short of a direct attack upon America, deterrence is nothing more than a high stakes game of bluff. And Saddam is notorious for calling the bluff of the world. A fact which the authors fail to address as they bend over backwards to apologise for his past sins. The notion that Saddam is a reasonable fellow who only starts wars when he thinks he can win them is a no-brainer. After all, who would start a war thinking otherwise?
So just how would containment be achieved? The authors don't say. Nor do they address Iraq's state sponsorship of terrorism. I know, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But we in the U.S. are concerned with those whom we define as terrorists, that is those who wish to kill Americans, and that is after all our primary concern.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I'm about to make a deliberately inflammatory statement:
I feel that there is a sentiment in the international community right now that's not unlike the one that allowed Germany to occupy Poland in 1939. Some were vehemently against that idea, and look what happened. An inch was given. A mile was taken.
So right now the US stands as the juggernaut ready to crush the Iraqis for causes Mr. Bush sees as just (whatever those may be. A cynic might mention "oil" or "concern for the security of israel" rather than "weapons of mass destruction", even though it's apparently OK for unreliable nations like Indonesia and North Korea to have them). We're telling nearly everyone who will listen that doing this thing is right.
Those that are going along with Bush's foreign policy right now, except for the British, seem to be highly unsure of the idea that it's really justified, no matter how bad Saddam Hussein is. Lots of internal debate. And there's a certain sense that maybe the US will stop after Iraq.
Only, to me, I *don't* see justification. Those with reservations seem entirely reasonable to have them. And what happens if France and Germany and China and Russia just throw up their hands and say "OK, invade Iraq, see if we care."?
I think it's very possible that Mr. Bush will move to the next target on his list... and we'll hear that Syria is harboring terrorists (Mr. Bush will presumably not be so rash as to seek conflict in Korea, which IMO represents a more serious threat to the US and its allies), and that we need to remove the government of Syria. And when France stands up and says "no, we won't let you do that", Mr. Bush decides to invade France. The French promptly surrender <G>
My point is, Saddam Hussein is the legal head of state in a nation that the US has neither diplomatic relations with nor any pressing concern with (unlike, say, Canada, which sends us lumber and comedians for our exports of fast food and movies). Iraq's business is its own. We (the world) have an inspection regime in Iraq deciding if any part of the Iraqi's business needs the involvement of the world. So far, that doesn't appear to be the case. The fearless leader of the US kind of pulled a fast one: We went from Afghanistan, where terrorists essentially operated with the support of the Taliban, to Iraq, which near as I understand has/had nothing to do with global terrorism. Now our justification is these weapons Saddam might have, except no one can prove it, and there ARE real terrorists out there (the 9-11 guys were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Qatar, not Iraq), and who have gotten a reasonably free ride for the six months that US has been attempting to almost-justify its military buildup in the persian gulf.
Did I miss something somewhere? Iraq is a nation with a brutal dictator. The world has lots of those. Some of those we even like and support (like, hey, Saddam Hussein, back in the 80s). Iraq doesn't have a lot to do with those terrorists, just it's own special internal badness. We've got terrorists running around making the Tom Ridge declare that we're on Purple-polka-dot Alert, and while we're interested in them, we're apparently not so interested that we'd choose to, say, find more nations where there are plane-crashing bad guys, and pick of THEM a little bit. Maybe because some of those countries are our allies?
The whole situation just pisses me off.
I feel that there is a sentiment in the international community right now that's not unlike the one that allowed Germany to occupy Poland in 1939. Some were vehemently against that idea, and look what happened. An inch was given. A mile was taken.
So right now the US stands as the juggernaut ready to crush the Iraqis for causes Mr. Bush sees as just (whatever those may be. A cynic might mention "oil" or "concern for the security of israel" rather than "weapons of mass destruction", even though it's apparently OK for unreliable nations like Indonesia and North Korea to have them). We're telling nearly everyone who will listen that doing this thing is right.
Those that are going along with Bush's foreign policy right now, except for the British, seem to be highly unsure of the idea that it's really justified, no matter how bad Saddam Hussein is. Lots of internal debate. And there's a certain sense that maybe the US will stop after Iraq.
Only, to me, I *don't* see justification. Those with reservations seem entirely reasonable to have them. And what happens if France and Germany and China and Russia just throw up their hands and say "OK, invade Iraq, see if we care."?
I think it's very possible that Mr. Bush will move to the next target on his list... and we'll hear that Syria is harboring terrorists (Mr. Bush will presumably not be so rash as to seek conflict in Korea, which IMO represents a more serious threat to the US and its allies), and that we need to remove the government of Syria. And when France stands up and says "no, we won't let you do that", Mr. Bush decides to invade France. The French promptly surrender <G>
My point is, Saddam Hussein is the legal head of state in a nation that the US has neither diplomatic relations with nor any pressing concern with (unlike, say, Canada, which sends us lumber and comedians for our exports of fast food and movies). Iraq's business is its own. We (the world) have an inspection regime in Iraq deciding if any part of the Iraqi's business needs the involvement of the world. So far, that doesn't appear to be the case. The fearless leader of the US kind of pulled a fast one: We went from Afghanistan, where terrorists essentially operated with the support of the Taliban, to Iraq, which near as I understand has/had nothing to do with global terrorism. Now our justification is these weapons Saddam might have, except no one can prove it, and there ARE real terrorists out there (the 9-11 guys were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Qatar, not Iraq), and who have gotten a reasonably free ride for the six months that US has been attempting to almost-justify its military buildup in the persian gulf.
Did I miss something somewhere? Iraq is a nation with a brutal dictator. The world has lots of those. Some of those we even like and support (like, hey, Saddam Hussein, back in the 80s). Iraq doesn't have a lot to do with those terrorists, just it's own special internal badness. We've got terrorists running around making the Tom Ridge declare that we're on Purple-polka-dot Alert, and while we're interested in them, we're apparently not so interested that we'd choose to, say, find more nations where there are plane-crashing bad guys, and pick of THEM a little bit. Maybe because some of those countries are our allies?
The whole situation just pisses me off.
Today is a sad day for Iraq and the world. Mr. Powell addressed the UN Security Council giving some of the US intelligence that it has accumulated concerning Iraq's mass destruction capability and it's concerted efforts in deceit. Assuming his data to be correct, is this not one more horrible step towards a potential war?
It will be interesting to see the true reactions of the security council, its member states, and outside experts in the fields of intelligence and weapons in a few weeks after they have had time to digest, check, and analyze Mr. Powells remarks. I have to say he is very convincing but I realize a US bias exists. That is why his report needs to be checked and re-checked by outside sources; It is totally unacceptable that false or misleading data exist from the side of "good" in a mad rush towards Bush's war agenda.
I am totally anti-war. However, the Iraq problem exists and a solution needs to be found. What are the alternatives, when Iraq is not willing to cooperate, protecting everyone from potential aggression using the worst kind of weapons. It has been shown through WWII that appeasment is not a solution that works against rogue states. How can those weapons be constrained to Iraq, if they have them. How can anyone stop Iraq from giving weapons, like Anthrax, to any group that is willing to use them against the "Enemies of Iraq".
Does anyone have a solution, other that force, that even has a chance against those that are deceitful and aggressive? How long can the world wait for some other solution to present itself, before disaster strikes? What can be done to convince Iraq that deceit is not in their self-interest?
It will be interesting to see the true reactions of the security council, its member states, and outside experts in the fields of intelligence and weapons in a few weeks after they have had time to digest, check, and analyze Mr. Powells remarks. I have to say he is very convincing but I realize a US bias exists. That is why his report needs to be checked and re-checked by outside sources; It is totally unacceptable that false or misleading data exist from the side of "good" in a mad rush towards Bush's war agenda.
I am totally anti-war. However, the Iraq problem exists and a solution needs to be found. What are the alternatives, when Iraq is not willing to cooperate, protecting everyone from potential aggression using the worst kind of weapons. It has been shown through WWII that appeasment is not a solution that works against rogue states. How can those weapons be constrained to Iraq, if they have them. How can anyone stop Iraq from giving weapons, like Anthrax, to any group that is willing to use them against the "Enemies of Iraq".
Does anyone have a solution, other that force, that even has a chance against those that are deceitful and aggressive? How long can the world wait for some other solution to present itself, before disaster strikes? What can be done to convince Iraq that deceit is not in their self-interest?
Prof.Wizard
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 1,460
After launching a handful of nuclear missiles to major US cities...Mercutio said:
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
I didn't think that Indonesia had nuclear weapons.
As for the address to the Sec Council, it really wasn't anything that had me picking my jaw off the floor. A couple of radio intercepts between a Col. and a Capt? Jesus, if that's enough for a war we are all in deep doodoo. The photos of a bunker with a couple of trucks? And then the trucks are gone? BFD. And the evidence to link Sad with Al-Queda is purely the word of Powell. Why wasn't the info given to the weapon inspectors? I doubt that Germany or France would withhold their veto. Especially France who has major investments in Iraq, including the majic black liquid.
As for the address to the Sec Council, it really wasn't anything that had me picking my jaw off the floor. A couple of radio intercepts between a Col. and a Capt? Jesus, if that's enough for a war we are all in deep doodoo. The photos of a bunker with a couple of trucks? And then the trucks are gone? BFD. And the evidence to link Sad with Al-Queda is purely the word of Powell. Why wasn't the info given to the weapon inspectors? I doubt that Germany or France would withhold their veto. Especially France who has major investments in Iraq, including the majic black liquid.
Prof.Wizard
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 1,460
The UN will become a real organisation* when nobody has veto and there are no permanent members.
All in this world are equal, but some are "more" equal than others... doesn't make sense, does it?
*That day I'll be willing to lower my national/EU flag for a UN flag.
All in this world are equal, but some are "more" equal than others... doesn't make sense, does it?
*That day I'll be willing to lower my national/EU flag for a UN flag.
Jake the Dog
Storage is cool
great post Merc. seriously, it was. it's also refreshing to see such perspective and opinion come from within the US of A.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
The Giver said:
Germany is currently head of the UN security council and therefore gets a vote in whatever issues come before the council. It's true that only the permanent members have veto power, but it DOES have input.
Another interesting article regarding Europe;
From - http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm200.cfm
From - http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm200.cfm
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
Oops, my mistake with Germany. But with Russia, France and China all opposed to sudden military action, it is the UK and USA in the minority. Of course I don't know why the US is even bothering with these theatrics, unless it hopes to get some money for the cost of the war from other countries? As was reported, there is no way that Shrub is going to recall 100,000 (170,000 in a couple of weeks) troops without attacking.
Prof.Wizard
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 1,460
This is so damn true. Nice said, Pradeep, and so true...Pradeep said:
Pradeep & Prof,
President Bush said from the beginning that Iraq was going to be disarmed, that has never been in question. The only question was whether the a U.S. led coalition would do it, or whether a U.N. led coalition would. The only to way to get the answer to that question was to bring the matter before the U.N..
A U.N. led coalition would be preferable for everyone, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. After all, there are 16 binding (unlike the resolutions Israel is ignoring) Security Council resolutions which Iraq has violated including the cease fire resolution from the Gulf War. But with or without the U.N, Iraq is going to be disarmed.
So I disagree that the U.N. effort currently under way is only an exercise in "theatrics". It is an attempt to do the right thing in the best way possible.
President Bush said from the beginning that Iraq was going to be disarmed, that has never been in question. The only question was whether the a U.S. led coalition would do it, or whether a U.N. led coalition would. The only to way to get the answer to that question was to bring the matter before the U.N..
A U.N. led coalition would be preferable for everyone, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. After all, there are 16 binding (unlike the resolutions Israel is ignoring) Security Council resolutions which Iraq has violated including the cease fire resolution from the Gulf War. But with or without the U.N, Iraq is going to be disarmed.
So I disagree that the U.N. effort currently under way is only an exercise in "theatrics". It is an attempt to do the right thing in the best way possible.
Cliptin
Wannabe Storage Freak
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078196/
There is a whole cadre of European nations that are not conlicted about the justification of removal. The loudest seem to be countries who believe the world still revolves around them. Take France for instance. For the longest time and in so many ways France has decided that she needs to be the contrarian to anything American. I'm certainly not for the erosion of a particular culture and I'm firmly of the opinion that if there is not a descenting opinion then is a problem; but there is a time to set aside the grand-standing. I predict that once France realizes it is risking irrelevance on the world stage it will vote in it's best interests and not veto. She knows her companies on Iraqi soil will flourish in parallel with an Iraqi middle-class and the attendant stability.
Germany will hold fast. Her president was elected on an anti-war platform and they are a people of extraordinary principle. As she doesn't have veto power, she risks less than France by bucking the trend.
Russia will wait until the last minute to make its decision.
This is an extremely naive statement. The US has pressing concern with every country in the world. Especially in today's world of global economics and travel. Take Iran for instance. In the 70s, when religious revolutionaries led the final overthrow of the shah's government, industries and banks where nationalized. Stolen from the companies and countries who had invested there.
Part of Powell's evidence was that Iraq is actively hiding stuff from the inspectors and that they are doing a good job of it. Many of the complaints of the US has been that the inspectors are not being dealt with in a forthright manner. Hans Blix himself complains that Iraq is not holding up their end of the agreement. Iraq says it is. Well, then what do you do?
If you're the UN and you act with precedence, you sit on your hands and wait another 10 years. And the inspectors may still never find anything.
The inspectors would know if the Iraqi's were hiding stuff, one might say.
This is a matter that is under intense internal debate within US intelligence agencies. Your gut may turn out to be correct.
However,
I myself am frustrated that the classified intelligence information that would provide enough of a push can not be provided. Information must be de-classified before it can be shared. Not only are the lives of the sources of this information at risk but so are their families if they are Iraqi. I assume we also have men in-country on intelligence gathering missions. Likely undercover. To reveal certain pieces of information would jeapardize not only human lives but also methods.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2077961/
(A)-http://slate.msn.com/id/2078196/
Mercutio said:
There is a whole cadre of European nations that are not conlicted about the justification of removal. The loudest seem to be countries who believe the world still revolves around them. Take France for instance. For the longest time and in so many ways France has decided that she needs to be the contrarian to anything American. I'm certainly not for the erosion of a particular culture and I'm firmly of the opinion that if there is not a descenting opinion then is a problem; but there is a time to set aside the grand-standing. I predict that once France realizes it is risking irrelevance on the world stage it will vote in it's best interests and not veto. She knows her companies on Iraqi soil will flourish in parallel with an Iraqi middle-class and the attendant stability.
Germany will hold fast. Her president was elected on an anti-war platform and they are a people of extraordinary principle. As she doesn't have veto power, she risks less than France by bucking the trend.
Russia will wait until the last minute to make its decision.
This is an extremely naive statement. The US has pressing concern with every country in the world. Especially in today's world of global economics and travel. Take Iran for instance. In the 70s, when religious revolutionaries led the final overthrow of the shah's government, industries and banks where nationalized. Stolen from the companies and countries who had invested there.
Part of Powell's evidence was that Iraq is actively hiding stuff from the inspectors and that they are doing a good job of it. Many of the complaints of the US has been that the inspectors are not being dealt with in a forthright manner. Hans Blix himself complains that Iraq is not holding up their end of the agreement. Iraq says it is. Well, then what do you do?
If you're the UN and you act with precedence, you sit on your hands and wait another 10 years. And the inspectors may still never find anything.
The inspectors would know if the Iraqi's were hiding stuff, one might say.
Fred Kaplan(A) said:
This is a matter that is under intense internal debate within US intelligence agencies. Your gut may turn out to be correct.
However,
Fred Kaplan(A) said:
I myself am frustrated that the classified intelligence information that would provide enough of a push can not be provided. Information must be de-classified before it can be shared. Not only are the lives of the sources of this information at risk but so are their families if they are Iraqi. I assume we also have men in-country on intelligence gathering missions. Likely undercover. To reveal certain pieces of information would jeapardize not only human lives but also methods.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2077961/
(A)-http://slate.msn.com/id/2078196/
Jake the Dog
Storage is cool
Re: http://slate.msn.com/id/2078196/
what an appaling statement. if you truly believe that the people and leader of France oppose non-UN ratified against Iraq on that basis that it's it's contrary to what the US wants, then you're as naive as they come.
irrelevant?. oh yeah, I forgot, the US is the only country in the world that matters.
exactly! 1st post in this thread highlights this 'pressing economic concern'.
I too am frustrated by this. I strongly believe though that a solution must to be found. it should be a mandatory requirement for any government to prove to it's population that there is such a clear and present danger to it's well being, that war is the only solution.
Cliptin said:
what an appaling statement. if you truly believe that the people and leader of France oppose non-UN ratified against Iraq on that basis that it's it's contrary to what the US wants, then you're as naive as they come.
Cliptin said:
irrelevant?. oh yeah, I forgot, the US is the only country in the world that matters.
Cliptin said:
exactly! 1st post in this thread highlights this 'pressing economic concern'.
Cliptin said:
I too am frustrated by this. I strongly believe though that a solution must to be found. it should be a mandatory requirement for any government to prove to it's population that there is such a clear and present danger to it's well being, that war is the only solution.
Speaking of the French this article says it all much better that I ever could;
From - http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg012403.asp
Hear hear!
From - http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg012403.asp
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
Good article Giver...I'm just wondering how much of that is true? Can someone with more knowledge on the situation fill me in?
Jake the Dog
Storage is cool
/me shakes head.
is this Goldberg an idiot? he's certainly not the brightest crayon on the box that's for sure...
the example of the child with one hand behind it's back also demonstrates how the weapon inspection 'game' hinders, if not stops, such weapons programmes. can the child play with the matches if it's always having to change hands? it's not like Iraq has it easy in trying to source nuclear materials either so imagine how hard is it to progress through, let alone maintain such a weapons programmes when you constantly have people randomly poking around the place as well.
another thing, Goldberg doesn't seem to make the connection that although France might be against sanctions, they are more against war. is that so hard to understand? doesn’t he understand the concept; "lesser of two evils"?
it was however, two comments in particular that really showed the ignorance this person has to suffer though and the arrogant attitude that taints his opinion:
the joke's on him if he thinks it's just a matter of grabbing said oil and all is hunky-dory.
and 'blood money'? this guy lives in an archaic fantasy world. and with a surname like Goldberg, I'm not surprised he found a way to bring in "Jew haters" into his twisted argument.
is this Goldberg an idiot? he's certainly not the brightest crayon on the box that's for sure...
the example of the child with one hand behind it's back also demonstrates how the weapon inspection 'game' hinders, if not stops, such weapons programmes. can the child play with the matches if it's always having to change hands? it's not like Iraq has it easy in trying to source nuclear materials either so imagine how hard is it to progress through, let alone maintain such a weapons programmes when you constantly have people randomly poking around the place as well.
another thing, Goldberg doesn't seem to make the connection that although France might be against sanctions, they are more against war. is that so hard to understand? doesn’t he understand the concept; "lesser of two evils"?
it was however, two comments in particular that really showed the ignorance this person has to suffer though and the arrogant attitude that taints his opinion:
and:
the joke's on him if he thinks it's just a matter of grabbing said oil and all is hunky-dory.
and 'blood money'? this guy lives in an archaic fantasy world. and with a surname like Goldberg, I'm not surprised he found a way to bring in "Jew haters" into his twisted argument.
Timwhit,
Here's a quote from the U.N. which shows the stats on what cpntracts were approved in just one week last November for the Iraqi "Oil for Food" program. Note who the contracts went to;
If you're really interested, do a search on Google using three key words - France, Oil, Iraq - You'll get lots of links with more detailed information.
Here's a quote from the U.N. which shows the stats on what cpntracts were approved in just one week last November for the Iraqi "Oil for Food" program. Note who the contracts went to;
Link - http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/latest/wu981109.html
If you're really interested, do a search on Google using three key words - France, Oil, Iraq - You'll get lots of links with more detailed information.
Jake the Dog
Storage is cool
Good to see these stats are available for public viewing. thanks for the link Giver.
let's not forget though that these oil, spare parts and equipment contracts are in return for massive food, medicine and health supplies to which the countries that are given these contract have to contribute an equal share to.
let's not forget though that these oil, spare parts and equipment contracts are in return for massive food, medicine and health supplies to which the countries that are given these contract have to contribute an equal share to.
Here's some further data from the U.S. Dept. of Energy which outlines oil contracts Iraq has with France and Russia. It is not insignificant to note that these contracts will not be worth the paper they are written on after Saddam is deposed... hint... hint.
From -http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/iraq.html
From -http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/iraq.html
Saddam for all his faults is a shrewd politician. Note that the Contracts above which Iraq has negotiated are all post sanction related and happen to be with three of the five permanent members of the security council all of whom have veto power.
Iraq has threatened France over the past few years to stop trading with them depending on how they vote in the security council. They have already removed France's "favored trading" status because of past votes.
Iraq has threatened France over the past few years to stop trading with them depending on how they vote in the security council. They have already removed France's "favored trading" status because of past votes.
James
Storage is cool
Apart from the obvious that the US should never consider using nuclear weapons anyway except in that circumstance, isn't that the whole basis of nuclear deterrence?The Giver said:
If Iraq (or any other country) is really determined to obtain nuclear weapons, is there anything at all the international community can do to stop them in the medium to long run? It seems highly unlikely.
Conversely, if you think about what drives countries to want nuclear weapons, it is usually lack of stability in international relations. Isn't that instability exactly what the US is creating when it talks about first strike incursions into sovereign nations? (cf. today's paper where North Korea says it will consider first strikes against the US.)
James
Storage is cool
You might want to check the year of the stats. It's 2003 now, not 1999, so these are figures well over four years old. It's a bit hard to draw meaningful conclusions from this.The Giver said:
Gimmie a break - If Iraq was really intelligent with a long-range view point what they would do is absolutely sumbit and get everything done with. Actually destroy all weapons (except for a few vials of seed germs), actively assist the inspectors in proving that everything was destroyed and all programs dismanteled. Then when the UN declares compliance then everybody goes away, all the embargo's cease, the no-fly zones end, everything goes back to normal.
Once back to normal status, they could then start all the weapons programs up again. They can covort with anyone they wanted to: Including terrorists. thay can do all the evil stuff that they are supposedly prevented from doing currently and nobody will have any say. Then in 5-10 years give a few thousand tons of Anthrax to some anti-american terrorist group and see if we can trace it back to them. After all we were so incrediblly successfull at tracking the last Anthrax problem.
If they did this from the start, ten tears ago, they would be far more dangerous today then they are now. That's because they would have had 7-8 years without any shackles to develop weapons.
Once back to normal status, they could then start all the weapons programs up again. They can covort with anyone they wanted to: Including terrorists. thay can do all the evil stuff that they are supposedly prevented from doing currently and nobody will have any say. Then in 5-10 years give a few thousand tons of Anthrax to some anti-american terrorist group and see if we can trace it back to them. After all we were so incrediblly successfull at tracking the last Anthrax problem.
If they did this from the start, ten tears ago, they would be far more dangerous today then they are now. That's because they would have had 7-8 years without any shackles to develop weapons.
Yes of course it is. The point is however that nuclear deterrence would not serve to "contain" Saddam in the middle east, as the authors seemed to infer, but rather would only theoretically deter him from launching a nuclear attack upon the U.S..James said:
It probably is unlikely. Yet that is no reason, imo, to give up trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons or at the very least slow it down as much as possible.
Well there is an argument to be made that in the case of the middle east, instability would not necessarily be a bad thing. I read an article about that recently. I'll see if I can find it. As for North Korea, if I'm not mistaken what was actually said was that if the U.S. began building up forces in the region in a threatening way they would not rule out striking those forces first. This may be in response to the recent re-deployment of U.S. Naval forces to the area.
You are quite right about the dates on the U.N. article I posted above, my apologies.
Well as it turns out the U.N. no longer releases the names of the countries the Oil for Food program contracts are awarded to. The latest data I could find was from June of 2001 from the U.S. State Department. And can be found here - http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2001/3538.htm
From a New York Times article dated September of 2002 comes the following quote -
The complete article can be found here - http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/0919threats.htm
From a New York Times article dated September of 2002 comes the following quote -
The complete article can be found here - http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/0919threats.htm
Cliptin
Wannabe Storage Freak
Re: http://slate.msn.com/id/2078196/
Looks like you got a little fired-up there but I think I understand what you menat.
No, I know that the leaders of France like all the counties of the world are in the business of taking care of its citizens wellbeing. This includes making decisions on the world stage that are to the benefit of companies based on its soil. I do believe that what I meantioned before contributes to her stubborness.
No, the US isn't the only country in the world that matters. As The Giver has described, under the UN charter any country has the right to self defence. And so going to the UN for a vote was more a vote of confidence. As opposed to asking the blessing of the Godfather. It would be nice to get some funding too. Now that 10 of the other European countries have formally given their blessing the number of countries who participate in world politics and are visibly backing the US is increasing. France is isolating itself. This leads to irrelevance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2733287.stm
I don't get your point. Oil is one Iraqi export that the US finds valuable. More valuable though are US products & raw materials that a stable and non-oligarcic(?) Iraqi society would import.
Since Powell's presentation, polls indicate support for disarming Iraq has grown among the American public.
What level of proof would you accept? Here in the US we have three basic levels of proof, Preponderance Of The Evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond all doubt.
Jake the Dog said:
Looks like you got a little fired-up there but I think I understand what you menat.
No, I know that the leaders of France like all the counties of the world are in the business of taking care of its citizens wellbeing. This includes making decisions on the world stage that are to the benefit of companies based on its soil. I do believe that what I meantioned before contributes to her stubborness.
No, the US isn't the only country in the world that matters. As The Giver has described, under the UN charter any country has the right to self defence. And so going to the UN for a vote was more a vote of confidence. As opposed to asking the blessing of the Godfather. It would be nice to get some funding too. Now that 10 of the other European countries have formally given their blessing the number of countries who participate in world politics and are visibly backing the US is increasing. France is isolating itself. This leads to irrelevance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2733287.stm
I don't get your point. Oil is one Iraqi export that the US finds valuable. More valuable though are US products & raw materials that a stable and non-oligarcic(?) Iraqi society would import.
Since Powell's presentation, polls indicate support for disarming Iraq has grown among the American public.
What level of proof would you accept? Here in the US we have three basic levels of proof, Preponderance Of The Evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond all doubt.
Jake the Dog
Storage is cool
what level of proof would I accept? only proof beyond all doubt. this means verified images, sounds, confessions, etc. I stress the word verified.
would you accept anything less for something as consequential as war?
would you accept anything less for something as consequential as war?