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

[Matt Gushee]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 06:11:27PM -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.

Actually, I had at least skimmed the whole thing. But I felt your
reasons were a bit weak.

> > 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.

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

Of course not. They will need to be enforced when and if those weapons
are found. But surely you've noticed that our government seems to be
certain, based on secret evidence that they refuse to share with the
country, that nukes will be found. So if the UN inspectors don't find an
active WMD program, it's a foregone conclusion that they are wrong. And
given the kind of pressure Bush and Co. have been putting on the UN
throughout this affair, it's fair to question whether we will ever hear
the real story.

> 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.

Interesting you should bring up neighboring countries. Which ones did
you have in mind? If Iraq were going to start attacking its neighbors,
Turkey seems like a likely victim. Yet it took quite a lot of work to
bring the Turks on board the crusade (and I think we promised them $25
billion in aid); Iran's another one--as far as I know they are still
opposed to this enterprise. You'd think that if Saddam were a serious
threat, those two countries in particular would be eager to go after
him. Besides Israel, is there any country in that region that is really
worried about Iraq?

> > 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?

[sigh] I thought the irony would be obvious. So much for clever
rhetorical devices. Let me restate the point clearly and colorlessly. We
have been hearing since September of last year that 9-11 happened partly
due to "intelligence failures." But we know that in fact both the FBI
and the CIA had a good deal of evidence that something was going to
happen. The official line, of course, is that we weren't warned either
due to the agencies' incompetence or because there was just too much
information to interpret correctly. And I suppose either of those
explanations is possible--but neither has been proven. It hasn't been
investigated, because (in case you hadn't noticed) the Bush
administration has fought tooth and nail to prevent an investigation
from taking place.

> 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.

The way Iraq, Iran, and North Korea do? How do they threaten the
(somewhat) free world? I thought that was the heart of the question we
were discussing. And how did you happen to pick those particular three
countries? Do you really believe this "Axis of Evil" crap?

> 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.

That's exactly what I meant by "failing to assert their authority."

> 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.

Right, first he bullied Congress into giving him everything he wants,
seemingly until the end of time. By the way, have they caught the
Anthrax killer yet? 

> 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.

Don't you read the news? This administration already has its answers,
evidence or no. Here's a typical statement from Donald Rumsfeld:

  "The issue is not inspections. The issue is disarmament. The issue is
   compliance"

Does he sound like a man who is looking for the truth, or one who is
looking for any scrap of information, no matter how trivial, that will
confirm his beliefs?

Look, our foreign policy is in the hands of rabid ideologues whose
definition of the national interest is very different, I suspect, from
yours or mine, and probably from that of most Americans. Richard Perle,
chairman of the Defense Policy Board. He's been at this a long time: he
also held a defense post during the Reagan administration, and at that
time was advocating a doctrine of "winnable nuclear war" against the
Soviet Union. Then there's Elliot Abrams, who admitted repeatedly lying
to Congress in support of Reagan's Nicaragua policy. Not to mention Otto
Reich, John Negroponte, and John "Total Information Awareness"
Poindexter. Look these guys up. Google is your friend.

But I've got to wrap this up. I don't think I'm terribly naive about the
world we live in. I grant that there are some dangerous characters out
there, and we can't always take the high road in dealing with them. But 
I strongly question our government's motives, priorities, and timing. I
believe we are being lied to. It wouldn't be the first time: consider
the USS Maine incident or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

That's the gist of my argument. Let me just quickly address a couple
more of your points.

> > 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.

Okay, that's news to me. Do you have a source for that?

> > > 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?

Like you, I'm waiting for some evidence. My point had to do with US
priorities. There are lots of lying bastards out there. Why do we need
to tackle this particular one (who is already much weaker than he used
to be) at this particular time?

> > > 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.  

Why is it another discussion? If you agree that oil is a major
motivation for war, why are you so willing to trust the government's
claim that it's really all about weapons?

-- 
Matt Gushee                 When a nation follows the Way,
Englewood, Colorado, USA    Horses bear manure through
mgushee at havenrock.com           its fields;
http://www.havenrock.com/   When a nation ignores the Way,
                            Horses bear soldiers through
                                its streets.
                                
                            --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.)