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

[Randy Arabie]

On Tuesday, 17 December 2002 at 22:40:51 -0700, Matt Gushee <mgushee at havenrock.com> wrote:
> 
> > > 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.

So why does it matter that "even if Iraq is planning to develop nuclear weapons, 
it is doubtful they will have the capacity to deliver them any time soon."

To me, it implies that you would not support military action against
Iraq until they have _nuclear_weapons_ AND the means to deliver them to
US soil.  You frequently refer to _nuclear_weapons_, when in fact the UN
Resolutions refer to WMD, which includes nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons.

I think the fundemental difference between our points of view is that
I'm a hawk and your a dove.  My definition of a "threat" is much
different than yours.

> > 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?

I beleive that many of them are concerned, but equally worried about
supporting UN action due to the Islamic Fundamentalist populations present 
in their country.  Saudi Arabia is a perfect example of such a country.

Kuwait and Qatar are two whom I beleive are supporting the UN
efforts.
 
> > 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 think there should be an investigation.  And, I'm certainly pleased Henry
Kissenger won't be leading it.

> > 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?

Do I believe Saddam is evil?  Yes.  The fact that he used chemical
weapons against his own civilian population leads me to believe that.

Do I believe Iran is evil?  Yes.  The fact that they are linked to many
US Embassy bombings, the marine barracks in Beirut, and the Khobar
Towers in Saudi Arabia leads me to believe that.

Do I believe North Korea is evil?  Yes.  The fact that he allowed his
citizens to needlessly starve leads me to believe that.  Based on your 
statements in another post regarding North Korea, I think you may agree 
as well.

> > 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? 

The President bullied Congress?  They have no will of their own?  How 
exactly were they "bullied"?  He asked for a resolution/authorization 
and got it.

No, AFAIK the anthrax killer has not been caught.  Does that somehow
support your opinion that Bush "bullied" Congress?  Was that how Bush 
"bullied" them?  "Pass a resolution supporting my war plans on Iraq, or 
you too will receive an anthrax packed envelope!"

> > 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.

Yes.  You seem to have a fundemental idealogical  disagreement with the
Bush administration.  Back to my, "I'm a hawk, you are a dove"
statement.  I don't agree totally with the Bush administration either,
but WRT foreign policy I think the approach has been good.

> > > 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?

No I don't.  I don't remember where I heard that.  I thought I heard it
on the news.  But when I tried to find something about Bush's meetings in
Prague I found nothing of the sort.  In fact, I found more evidence to 
the contrary.  I must be mistaken.

> > > > 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?

Either you support the UN Resolutions or not.  If you do, then they must
be enforced.  Otherwise they are meaningless.

> > > > 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?

Because I think our dependence on foreign oil has hindered our efforts
to do right in the Gulf region.  It has hindered our efforts to protect
ourselves and the world from terrorism.  We have allowed countries like
Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia to proliferate WMD and support terrorist
because we have been afraid of "disrupting the free flow of oil at
market prices."

I don't think we are on the road to war with Iraq simply because they have oil
reserves that we need.
-- 
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/20021218/c019abfc/attachment.bin