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

[Randy Arabie]

On Tuesday, 17 December 2002 at 20:50:04 -0700, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier <clue at dissociatedpress.net> wrote:

> > 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.

What threat?  Granted, none of them will send an army over and storm the
US beaches, but...

Iran has been linked to the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut, the bombing 
of the marine barracks in Beirut, the bombing of the US Embassy's (or 
Embassies?) in Africa, and the bombing of the Khobar barracks in Saudi Arabia. 
And the terrorists responsible for the bombing of PanAm flight 101 also had 
ties to Iran.

North Korea isn't as clear a threat.  I'm not aware of any evidence
linking them to terrorists.  But they do have WMD programs and missles
with regional range, not yet ICBM's, but they are working on that.
 
> > 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.
 
Those are not mutually exclusive.  Iraq can be (is) a serious present-day
threat despite the dismal condition of it's conventional military
forces. 

The ability to package enough nerve gas to kill thousands into a container, ship 
it over to NY City, and release it in a crowded subway is a serious present-day 
threat.

The ability to send smallpox infected "martyrs" on an all expense paid
vacation at Disney World is a serious present-day threat.

> 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.

Really?  That's exactly what we did during the Gulf War.  In fact, we
did much more than provoke him.  We attacked him and destroyed most of his
conventional military forces _AND_ all the stockpiles of WMD we could 
find.

> > 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.

Yes, we have seen a serious erosion of our liberties.  And I despise
that.  I disagree with the detention without due process, the secret
military tribunals, and the relaxation of wiretap laws.

However, I still believe that the adminstration will reveal the evidence 
that proves Saddam is in violation of the UN Resolutions. I believe the 
domestic and international outcry would be too great if they didn't, and 
I believe the administration knows that.

If they don't, well I guess I'll be joining ranks with yourself and
Matt...if you'll have me ;)

> > 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.

Ok.  I see.  If the Bush Administration acts unilaterally you won't be
happy.  And if they seek approval from the only international governing
world body you won't be happy either.

I'm really not sure what you would have them do.
-- 
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/eb0b1d97/attachment.bin