Iraq [was Re: [CLUE-Talk] Slashdot Gun Control]

[Randy Arabie]

On Tuesday, 17 December 2002 at 16:47:07 -0700, Matt Gushee <mgushee at havenrock.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 09:18:46AM -0700, Randy Arabie wrote:
> 
> > While no evidence has been presented to confirm that Iraq has WMD of any
> > form, I think we do have good reasons to beleive they do or are in the 
> > process of developing them.
> 
> It's very nice that you think that, but why do you? Surely you don't
> believe the government simply because it's the government--I know you're
> much smarter than that.

You obviously made that statement before reading the remainder of my
message.

> According to reports I have seen and believe to be credible (sorry, no
> time to look them up right this moment), even if Iraq is planning to
> develop nuclear weapons, it is doubtful they will have the capacity to
> deliver them any time soon. Iraq's overall military strength is a small
> fraction of what it was prior to the Gulf War. Furthermore, the
> country's civilian infrastructure has been devastated--thanks the war,
> ten years of sanctions, and regular US bombing raids in the "no-fly 
> zones," which, by the way, cover more than half the country. It would
> take quite a long time for Iraq to regain the strength it had in
> 1991.

Are you suggesting that the UN Resolutions against Iraq need not be enforced 
until Iraq has the means to deliver their nuclear weapons?

And, I think the assumption there is that a long range missile would be required
for delivery.  What about a Ryder truck?  Iraq does have scud missiles,
which are capable of delivering chemical or biological weapons to
neighboring countries.

> Furthermore, there was a statement from the CIA back in, oh, I guess
> September, saying that, if Iraq had WMD, they were only likely to use
> them against us if we attacked them. Think "cornered animal."
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot. The CIA is incompetent. I know they are because the
> TV tells me so. We don't need no stinkin' investigation to prove that.

So, does this obviate your previous use of the CIA as supporting material, 
or not?  Are the incompetent, or not?  If you believe they are, then why 
bring them up as a source of info?

> > I have reserved judgement pending the outcome of the current inspections 
> > and Iraq's compliance (or lack thereof) with the recent UN sanctions.  If 
> > there is existing evidence the administration is entitled to keep it secret 
> > until they want to move forward with military action.
> 
> Until they want to?! Dude, last time I checked, declaring war was
> Congress's job. And if Congress fails to assert its authority, it's up
> to the citizenry to set things right.

Separation of Powers and Declarations of War are a whole seperate
discussion.  The fact is, no president has been restrained by that since
WWII.

I don't like it either.  But, I'm not gonna become a peacenik and continue to 
watch rogue nations threaten the free world the way Iraq, Iran, and North Korea 
do just because I don't think the President alone is not allowed to deploy 
troops without a Declaration of War from Congress.

BTW, Congress did pass a resolution that authorizes Bush to use force against Iraq.  
While not a formal Declaration of War, it does indicate that he has the support of 
Congress.  It is not as if Bush is some "cowboy" out there half-cocked shipping 
troops around the world to bully whomever he wants whenever he wants.

I believe that when the administration has determined that Iraq has
materialy violated the recent UN Resolutions he will present the
evidence necessary to demonstrate that violation and move forward with
his plans to remove Saddam.

> > It is well known that the UN weapons inspections following the Gulf War 
> > were hindered by Iraqi deception and denial of access.  The
> > International Institute for Strategic Studies "dossier" on Iraq seems to
> > contradict Mr. Ritters statements.  
> > 
> > See http://www.iiss.org/confStatement.php?confID=3
> 
> Okay, they have a lot to say about what *could* be happening. And one of
> their conclusions is:
> 
>  # It could, however, assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile
>    material from foreign sources were obtained.
> 
> That's still a big if. Maybe Iraq could buy fissionable material from
> some impoverished former Soviet republic; well, by the same token,
> Mozambique could probably buy fully-armed tactical nuclear missiles from
> them. If you want to play what-if games, there are probably 100
> countries that could pose threats to us in a few years. And rats might
> crawl out of your toilet and bite you on the ass.

I'm willing to bet my rat bitten ass that Saddam already has weapons of 
mass destruction*, and thus is in violation of the UN Resolutions passed 
following the Gulf War, as well as those recently passed in November.

* Please note that in addition to nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction 
include chemical and biological weapons.

> My position on this is: we cannot eliminate every potential threat.
> Preemptive military action against countries that pose no clear and
> present danger is morally wrong, but even if you take the defensible
> position that it's a rough world and we can't afford that kind of
> morality, you have to deal with the fact that there will eventually be a
> backlash against US adventurism. And if we're not careful about who we
> attack, at some point--maybe 200 years down the road, maybe 5--we will
> get hit hard. Maybe we will anyway. And, like it or not, this country
> won't be strong forever; so we would do well to get along with our 
> allies and be wary of lashing out at enemies, lest we find ourselves one
> day with nothing left but enemies.
> 
> > And this just last week: "US Suspect Al Qaeda Got Nerve Agent From
> > Iraqis"
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42876-2002Dec11.html
> 
> Anything's possible, I suppose. I would only note that our government
> keeps trying to make that link, and keeps coming up empty-handed. Iraqi
> meets al-Quaeda agent in Prague? Not according to Vaclav Havel (last I
> heard, he liked America). And so on ...

And, the President of the Czech Republic assured Mr. Bush last week that
this alleged meeting did occur.

> > I think we could cite reports and sources of information for hours that 
> > support either side of the argument.  We will not know until the
> > evidence is presented.  Until that time, I look at Iraqs history and
> > say, "Saddam has denied, lied and deceived in the past.  I suspect he 
> > does have WMD and/or programs to develop them."
> 
> Gosh, a lying dictator. That's unusual. 

Thus, you believe his delcaration that he does not have weapons of mass
destruction?

> > I don't support war a against Iraq without evidence supporting those 
> > suspicions.  And, I don't expect the US to go to war without presenting 
> > the evidence.
> 
> You don't? What makes you believe that evidence will be presented? Let
> me be charitable and assume that the Bush administration can be trusted.
> Have you heard any official statements that evidence will be presented?
> I haven't; on the contrary, I recall only statements to the effect that
> "we don't have to present the evidence."

I think it will, you think it won't.  A key point of disagreement.  I
think the Bush administration is wise enough to know that they cannont
persue military action against Iraq without presenting the evidence.

They have already demonstrated similar wisdom by going to the UN for
additional resolutions, which were subsequently passed by the UN
Security Council.

> > >  * If aggressive states with nuclear weapons are such a menace, why
> > >    haven't we already invaded North Korea? They openly admit to having a
> > >    nuclear weapons program, and have fired several test missiles into
> > >    Japanese waters. Or what about Pakistan, which not only has nukes,
> > >    but is taking our money and using it to brutally suppress human
> > >    rights--and probably also to protect Taliban and Al Qaida fugitives?
> > 
> > Even with the best military in the world, we can't take them all at 
> > once. Perhaps one of them will be next. If an example is made of Iraq, then 
> > we will have greater leverage in diplomatic negotiations with the rest of the 
> > "Axis of Evil".
> > 
> > Additionally, Iraq is an easier target.
> 
> In other words, they're not that much of a threat. And their oilfields
> are so much richer.
> 
> Oops! Sorry, Mr. Cheney, I won't mention that word again. No, you're
> right. I know how dedicated you are to public service. None of this
> could possibly have anything to do with oil.

Yes. Sadly, oil does have a lot to do with it.  That is yet another discussion.  
I wish our country had a plan to move us away from dependance on oil, especially 
foreign oil.  Considering America's love affair with the SUV, I don't see that 
happening anytime soon.

You may recall my mention of the book by Robert Baer.  Take a look at some recent 
comments by him here (sorry for the long link):

http://www.gopbi.com/cgi-bin/pbdn/story.cgi?article=http://www.gopbi.com/auto/pbdn/feed/news/2002/12/05/1039095769.03162.0448.5526.html

He raises the issue that not only is Iraq a threat, but Saudi Arabia may 
be a greater threat.  However, current and past US administrations have 
been unwilling to face the facts because of our dependance on Saudi oil.
-- 
Allons Rouler!
        
Randy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://cluedenver.org/pipermail/clue-talk/attachments/20021217/9e9d9ff8/attachment.bin