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

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Randy Arabie wrote:

> > 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?

Randy, I'm pretty sure that was meant to be sarcasm...

> 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.

How, exactly, does Iraq actually "threaten" (other than Saddam shooting
off at the mouth) the "free world." They invaded Kuwait, hardly a part
of the "free world." They're killing off their own people. But, Iraq
hardly poses a real threat to the U.S. or "free" countries.  Perhaps
Israel, but Israel can take care of itself.

While each of those countries may hate the U.S., the fact is that they
don't really pose much of a real threat. I'd worry more about North
Korea than Iraq... and I don't worry much about North Korea. Why?
Because they realize that it would be suicide to attack the U.S.
directly.

> 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.

I believe the administration is either looking to confiscate some
oil-rich country, or they're desperately trying to deflect attention
away from the country's real problems. (or both) I don't believe for a
second half of the administration's claims about Iraq -- not because
I think that Saddam is trustworthy, but because the claims aren't
consistent from day to day and because I don't really have too much
respect for the administration in the first place. One day we're going
to go to war with Iraq because they supported the terrorists, then
it's because of WMD, then it's because they've violated UN resolutions,
then... every time one of the reasons is debunked, we get re-routed
to a new set of reasons.

I also find it interesting that we're being asked to believe two
completely conflicting ideas at once: That Iraq poses a serious
present-day threat to the U.S., and that we can easily overtake Iraq in
a conflict with minimal consequences.

The truth is this: IF Washington believed that Iraq actually had WMD
that they could threaten the U.S. with, we wouldn't be so willing to
provoke Saddam.

> 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.

Are you kidding? The Bush administration has done NOTHING to indicate
that they feel the need to inform anyone (outside of the administration)
of their justification for doing ANYHING. They want to be able to arrest
anyone without due process, make energy policy without disclosing who
has influenced the policy and they're doing their level best to snoop
into everyone's personal information... what is it that they've done to
inspire confidence? I haven't seen it.

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

Read: The administration basically shoved the resolutions down the UN's
collective throat by making it clear that the UN could appear relevant
and go along with what the administration wanted to do, or we'd do it
anyway and make it clear that the UN is no longer relevant. At this
point the UN is a joke.

Even so, the administration only went to the UN as an afterthought and
after it was made clear that it was done with contempt and only as a
formal gesture.

On paper, they went through the proper channels. The Bush administration
has made it perfectly clear, however, that they do not feel at all
constrained by the UN... which makes it doubly wrong for them to use
violations of UN resolutions as a reason to attack Iraq.

> 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.

Have to agree with that.

> 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.

And another point of agreement -- Iraq isn't a friendly country, but we
know where they stand. I have no doubt, however, that Saudi Arabia is a
far greater threat than Iraq is or can hope to be in the next decade.

Zonker
--
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/