Can the Iraq situation be explained to me?

[Lsura]

Ok, I'm hoping this won't turn into a Great Debate, because what I really want are facts. And I know I'm showing my status as an "ignorant American", but I've learned to not necessarily trust what I read in the papers about the situation.

So, why is the current administration so intent on taking Saddam out of power?

I was a senior in high school during Desert Storm, and I'm not sure that I fully understood then, though I'm fairly certain that the official position was that we didn't want Iraq taking over Kuwait. And the situation today is supposedly because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that they're not admitting to (why are we so sure that they have them? Did we sell these weapons to them or something?)

Basically, I'm looking for the facts of the situation. I've read that it's because of oil, becuase we're like the "playground bully"and all sorts of things. But it's tough to sort out facts from all the various opinions out there.


Thanks.

[Dunderman]

Well, finding out the actual truth is impossible. No-one really knows why the people in power do the things they do except the people in power themselves. I could give you a whole plateful of opinions that I think are close to the truth, but in the end I cannot back them up with anything but more opinions.

Simplified version of the official story:

Iraq invaded Kuwait. Invasion isn't a nice thing to do. USA helps out the Kuwaitis by repelling the Iraqis from their lands. Iraq surrenders, and one of the conditions the USA demands is that they do not manufacture or keep weapons of mass destruction. US government believes Iraq does have such weapons, and UN inspectors have been denied access. So now it's brute force time unless the Iraqis let the UN inspectors do their job.

That's basically it as far as facts go, and further than that we cannot get without resorting to opinion. It may be about oil, politics, machismo or that Yog-Sothoth is buried underneath Baghdad. No way for us to know.

[Richard Pearse]

To answer your OP. No, at least not by me.

[puddleglum]

Here is a link to a speech about the Iraq situation:
http://www.ashbrook.org/articles/bush_02-10-07.html
Here is a quote from that speech:

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions—its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by Lsura
And the situation today is supposedly because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that they're not admitting to (why are we so sure that they have them? Did we sell these weapons to them or something?)

This is a hard thread to answer without resorting to opinion. As mentioned a factual answer is tough to come by if not impossible. However, there are some facts that can be tossed out.

I'm reasonably certain the US did not sell weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to Iraq. Certainly not nuclear or biologic weapons and I seriously doubt chemical. The US did sell Iraq a pile of weapons while they were at war with Iran but it was all conventional stuff. Of course Iraq could presumably modify a warhead on a missile the US sold them to carry a chemical agent and use a plane or helicopter we sold them to deliver it but we did not directly sell them chemicals (it's not like the stuff is hard to produce anyway).

As to today the US keeps insisting that Iraq has WMD. The US even claims to have evidence of this (along with Great Britain). UN inspectors are sent in and so far have found nothing more than a dozen or so missiles capable of carrying a chemical agent (but not filled with anything). The UN inspectors keep asking the US to produce the intelligence of these weapons so they can go get them but so far the US has refused to share saying that it would compromise intelligence sources.

[zombie dude13]

>>>No-one really knows why the people in power do the things they do except the people in power themselves. <<<<<

Actually, I doubt George Bush has a clue to why he does half the things he does. He isn't the power on the throne, or the power behind the throne, he is the throne. Thrones don't think for themselves and that is pretty much Bush in a nutshell. I kinda suspect, that is also the case with most world leaders. Aside from a rare few TRUE leaders, there is a manipulator/puppeteer who is really in control. Which means that no one knows why people in power do what they, except for about 40% of people in power themselves. Puppeteers can be interest groups, big businesses, religous factions, or even sneaky stay in the shadow dictator types.

My impression of the war with Iraq is that The Bush administration, like the previous one, needs a boogey man to rattle sabers at whenever a problem arises domestically. The problem being, Bush makes enough enemies by opening his mouth without needing to villify an easy target. The Axis of Evil crap is what got NK all ticked off. Now we are looking at 2 simultaneous wars because Bush doesn't have the sense not to name names. Does he really know what he is doing? I just pray he never has to deal with a "Bay of Pigs" situation.

[Gary T]

I heard an interesting segment on NPR about a sort of news service called Debka ( http://debka.com/ ). Apparently they have quite a web of information resources, though they won't cite any sources. The reporter/host said something to the effect that a typical reaction to some of their items is "That's ridiculous and unbelievable," until the same item gets reported in the mainstream press (with source attribution, I assume) a few weeks later.

As I recall, one Debka person being interviewed said that special forces from the U.S., Turkey, and Jordan working within Iraq have located the WMDs, and when the time is right, Bush will have them surround and isolate a location and call the U.N. inspectors to it, thus revealing the weapons' existence to the world. Presumably, the invasion of Iraq will follow.

This page has one Iraqi defector describing where the WMDs are:
http://debka.com/article.php?aid=247

So assuming this is true, Iraq is in blatant defiance of U.N. directives and is capable of doing some horrendous stuff. My understanding is that most analysts of the Middle East have no reason to think that Saddam will refrain from using these weapons when it suits him.

A few weeks ago in Newsweek there was an article that made a compelling case for not allowing Iraq to proceed. If it gets its nukes operational, there would be major disruption of stability in the Middle East and the world as a whole. Whatever personal motives one might ascribe to Bush, it can be reasonably argued that the world's best interests are served by stopping Iraq before its capabilities get even more devastating.

I'm sorry this isn't demonstrably "the facts of the situation," but as mentioned above, the facts are not in wide circulation at present. Nevertheless, I hope that this perspective helps to answer the OP.

[toadspittle]

I think the other half of the situation is "Why now?" Why not 10 years ago, 5 years ago, January 2001 when Bush assumed office, or ten years from now?

The answer to that would seem to be that 9/11 and the subsequent war on terror has given the U.S. the apparent momentum at home and abroad to push Saddam out of power now--something we've been wanting for some time, but didn't have an immediate excuse for.

But while the U.S. has some momentum, it doesn't have any sort of smoking gun (or at least, no more of a smoking gun than it's had since the first UN inspectors were jerked around years ago--probably just cause enough for an invasion), and convincing the intl. community isn't 100% smooth.

[David Simmons]

The official response is that Hussein isn't following the agreed to limitations on Iraq following the Gulf War.

I heard Colin Powell on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/powell_1-22-03.html) and he said a couple of things that puzzle me.

First: "What the resolution called for was not just Iraqi cooperation. It demanded that Iraq be disarmed, Iraq disarm itself. And the inspectors are supposed to verify or ascertain that disarmament. And in the absence of Iraq's stepping up to its responsibilities and saying to the international community not only am I claiming I am free of weapons of mass destruction, I will give you all the evidence you need to prove that fact, and that's what they have not done. And they have said they don't have any weapons of mass destruction. If that is the truth, come forward to the evidence of that truth and lay it out before the world, lay it out before the inspectors to verify, and there will be no war. But Iraq has not taken that step."

It seems to me that Hussein is being required by the US to "provide evidence" that he doesn't have something. Now this might be possible but it seems to me that it will require more time than has been given since the UN sent inspectors back to Iraq.

Lehrer than asked if the differences between the US and some other Security Council members was because we interpret the available information differently or because we have private information not available to the others. Powell's answer was, "I think it's a combination of the two, Jim. I believe that we have more information and knowledge, much of it highly classified, that others do not have access to, or at least say they are not aware of, things that have gone on inside of Iraq, and I hope that we'll have the opportunity to present this in the debate that's coming up." Powell spoke only of our having data not available to others and didn't elaborate on the difference of the interpretation of data that is available to all.

I wonder why he can only "hope[s] that we'll have the opportunity to present this ..." in the upcoming debate. Why just "hope?" Why not just do it? I'm sure that one of the standard answers will be that to reveal it would "compromise sources." However one of the uses of intelligence data seems to me to be that you can use it to convince others that you know what you are talking about.

If our official continue to bluster and refuse to provide the information they claim they have to prove their case, I don't think there is much hope of knowing what this Iraq situation is all about.

[David Simmons]

The official response is that Hussein isn't following the agreed to limitations on Iraq following the Gulf War.

I heard Colin Powell on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/powell_1-22-03.html) and he said a couple of things that puzzle me.

First: "What the resolution called for was not just Iraqi cooperation. It demanded that Iraq be disarmed, Iraq disarm itself. And the inspectors are supposed to verify or ascertain that disarmament. And in the absence of Iraq's stepping up to its responsibilities and saying to the international community not only am I claiming I am free of weapons of mass destruction, I will give you all the evidence you need to prove that fact, and that's what they have not done. And they have said they don't have any weapons of mass destruction. If that is the truth, come forward to the evidence of that truth and lay it out before the world, lay it out before the inspectors to verify, and there will be no war. But Iraq has not taken that step."

It seems to me that Hussein is being required by the US to "provide evidence" that he doesn't have something. Now this might be possible but it seems to me that it will require more time than has been given since the UN sent inspectors back to Iraq.

Lehrer than asked if the differences between the US and some other Security Council members was because we interpret the available information differently or because we have private information not available to the others. Powell's answer was, "I think it's a combination of the two, Jim. I believe that we have more information and knowledge, much of it highly classified, that others do not have access to, or at least say they are not aware of, things that have gone on inside of Iraq, and I hope that we'll have the opportunity to present this in the debate that's coming up." Powell spoke only of our having data not available to others and didn't elaborate on the difference of the interpretation of data that is available to all.

I wonder why he can only "hope that we'll have the opportunity to present this ..." in the upcoming debate. Why just "hope?" Why not just do it? I'm sure that one of the standard answers will be that to reveal it would "compromise sources." However one of the uses of intelligence data seems to me to be that you can use it to convince others that you know what you are talking about.

If our official continue to bluster and refuse to provide the information they claim they have to prove their case, I don't think there is much hope of knowing what this Iraq situation is all about.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
I'm reasonably certain the US did not sell weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to Iraq. Certainly not nuclear or biologic weapons and I seriously doubt chemical. There are some allegations (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s690624.htm) that the US sold the 'building blocks' of WMD to Iraq in the 80s, in addition to all the conventional stuff. I leave you to make up your own minds.

[Dunderman]

Originally posted by zombie dude13
Actually, I doubt George Bush has a clue to why he does half the things he does. He isn't the power on the throne, or the power behind the throne, he is the throne. Thrones don't think for themselves and that is pretty much Bush in a nutshell. I kinda suspect, that is also the case with most world leaders. Aside from a rare few TRUE leaders, there is a manipulator/puppeteer who is really in control. Which means that no one knows why people in power do what they, except for about 40% of people in power themselves. Puppeteers can be interest groups, big businesses, religous factions, or even sneaky stay in the shadow dictator types.

My impression of the war with Iraq is that ...
I may or may not agree with this. Either way, it's opinion, and the original poster specifically asked for facts, not opinions.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by jjimm
There are some allegations (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s690624.htm) that the US sold the 'building blocks' of WMD to Iraq in the 80s, in addition to all the conventional stuff. I leave you to make up your own minds.

I know this is un-GQ of me but if that link is true what the HELL were US officials thinking? What a bunch of dumbasses!

[regnad kcin]

However, regarding Debka:

http://www.debka.co.il/index.php

They are an Israeli-owned institution. I think it would be foolish to think that this does not color their opinions to some degree.

[regnad kcin]

Off topic, but didja notice that the page I linked to above has the scroll bar on the LEFT side? Isnt that neat? I bet Arabic sites have the same thing.

[MaryEFoo]

How much of a threat Saddam may be is disussed above, and this post is not addressing it.

An article in the San Francisco Chronicle, within the last six weeks, published some particulars: Iraq has the second greatest proven oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia. They have existing contracts on their biggest fields with developers in several foreign countries (France, Russia, etc).

Two officials of the Iranian National Congress have both stated that if they attain power in Iraq, replacing Saddam, they will cancel those contracts and make them available to American developers.

[toadspittle]

That's the greatest link ever. Here's a sample of what I saw:


20:50: 3 ??????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????, ???? ??????? ??????. ????? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ????.

?? ???? ???????? ????? ?????: ????? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ???????, ???? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ????????.

????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????. ?? ???? ?????? ?'? ?????, ???? ??????????, ??? ???? ?? ???????? ???????? ??????? ????? ??? ????? ?'??? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ?????, ??????? ?- 31 ??????, ??? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??"?. ??????, ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ???????, ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??????.

?????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ???????? ??????. ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????.

????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????, ????? ????? ?????? ????, ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? 24 ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????, ???????? ??????, ????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????. ?????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? 2001. ??????? ???????, ?????? ???? ???? ?-3000 ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????.

?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????, ????? ?????? ???? ?' ?? ?????? ???? ??????, ???? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ??????? ????????. ??????? ????????? ???? ???, ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ???????, ??????? ?? ??????. ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???????. ?? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?????, ????.


I just found it extra funny because the earlier debka.com link worked fine.

[regnad kcin]

Hey, it worked for me, Toad. Maybe you need to get a Hebrew character set.

I must say, though, that your post raises a lot of questions.

[Gary T]

When I hit regnad's link, I got a page written in Hebrew. I believe he posted it just to illustrate Debka's Israeli affiliation.

My interest in Debka has to do with my hearing that they publish information (usually without verification) that seems outlandish but later gets published in other media with verification. Their opinions are not at issue.

[Zebra]

Its not like Saddam has to prove a negative. He doesn't have to show he has nothing. He has to show the process of dismantling. Yes we know he has them as he used them on the Kurds. We also have various spy outlets that inform us that he is rebuilding. (spy plane/sat photos, defectors, ect)

After the last war of a great number of nations against Iraq the UN imposed sanctions. These are clearly not being lived up to and that last big report Iraq filed to 'show' their disarming activites are pretty incomplete and inaccruate.

The big questions is "Is Iraq harboring OBL and/or other terrorists?" and "Would Iraq provide WMD to terror organizations which could be used against the US or US interests?" If the answer is yes then the president has a duty 'to protect' the United States and do 'something' about it.

Of course people may disagree on what that something is and if wether or not this is a nice way to distract people from the failing economy/relaxing of laws protecting theenvironment/attacks on basic liberties that W seems to be doing.

[regnad kcin]

Gary:

Of course it is relevant. When you decide to accept information that is deliberately not backed up by any sources and has to be taken solely on faith, you had better be sure there isnt an alterior motive involved.

This is true not only in the case of Debka, but also in the case of the Bush administration.

How often have we seen wild claims on this board responded to by "cite, please?"

[Destination Unknown]

Oil.

Americans don't want to pay $2 for a gallon of gas. Driving an SUV means more than human lives in another country with a different language.

BTW, according to Reuters today, China, Canada, Germany, France, and Russia are officially opposed to any military action in Iraq right now. Pretty significant statement if you ask me.

[Gary T]

regnad:

I understand and agree. However, the particular aspect I'm focusing on is that IF these items reported by Debka later turn out to be verified facts--which I understand to often be the case from the radio feature I heard--then those facts would help answer the OP.

Having just recently been made aware of Debka, I'll be interested to see if we do indeed hear confirmation of these particular items
sometime in the near future.

[Hail Ants]

September 11th was carried out by Al-Queda. Iraq is a self-declared supporter of terrorism and self-declared enemy of the US. Before 9/11 it was mostly just rhetoric. 9/11 made it real. Iraq was a contributing factor in carrying out 9/11 and will continue to finance and abide terrorist actions against the US unless we stop them. So we are going to stop them.

What's not to understand?

[regnad kcin]

Saddam Hussein has a history of cracking down against fundamentalist extremism in his OWN country. His regime is by and large a secular one. The terrorism he supports is in Israel.

The only reason he could possibly have to support al Qaeda is because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (an ill-advised attitude that, by the way, made Iraq OUR ally during the Reagan presidency, as well as the extremists in Afghanistan).

Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are not pals. Islamic fundamentalists do not support Saddam Hussein's regime.

[regnad kcin]

"Iraq was a contributing factor in carrying out 9/11"

link, please?

[JRR]

Originally posted by Destination Unknown
Oil.

Americans don't want to pay $2 for a gallon of gas. Driving an SUV means more than human lives in another country with a different language. How exactly is this about oil?

As it stands right now, Iraq needs to sell its oil - it doesn't exactly have a lot of other resources to. They just signed an agreement to sell billions of dollars worth to Russia. This means that Russia will buy less oil from, say, Saudi Arabia, lowering the price there due to lower demand.

So how would invading Iraq lower the price of oil?

[Hail Ants]

"Iraq was a contributing factor in carrying out 9/11"I don't have to read it on the Drudge Report to know that Iraqi money makes its way to Al-Queda, any more than I need proof that Iraq is still trying to build and/or aquire a nuclear weapon. Its just common sense.

[regnad kcin]

Is that the important qualifier, Hail Ants?

Why arent we invading our close ally Saudi Arabia, then?

Bin Laden, almost all of the hijackers, and the vast majority of al Qaeda's contributers are Saudis.

Obviously, if related to 9/11, this impending war is so only indirectly -- insofar as 1) many Americans (such as Hail Ants) labor under the misconception that Iraq was behind 9/11, whom Bush has done nothing to dissuade, and 2) it gives Bush political momentum to act as he wants while wrapping those actions in the flag.

[bernse]

Oil

I don't think so. If it was just about oil, the Allies would have steamrolled through Iraq in 91 when all the equipment, manpower and international support was already there.

My .02

[Squink]

Originally posted by Gary T
My interest in Debka has to do with my hearing that they publish information (usually without verification) that seems outlandish but later gets published in other media with verification. Their opinions are not at issue. Here's (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/suspects/osama.html) what a US paper with a similar reputation for occasional truths has to say about Saddam. Could it be true ? Did North Korea really ship its uranium enrichment facilities to Iran (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157794) like Debka says ? Is it worth your time trying to figure that out ?

[Hail Ants]

Because Saudi Arabia is our ally. Enough so that the actions of their citizens on 9/11 strained our relations, but not to the point of going to war. If SA wasn't an ally we probably would be going to war with them unless they proved that 9/11 was a totally independent act with no official support.

If Iraq was not at all 'behind' 9/11 or any other terrorist acts against the US & its allies then the burden is on them to prove it. To think otherwise shows either ignorance or cowardice.

[regnad kcin]

There is no doubt in my mind that Hussein supports terrorists in Israel. So do a lot of other Arab countries whom we are not threatening.

Those involved in 9/11 were not supported by Hussein, or if they were there is no evidence to suggest it. I dont believe Bush has ever said they were.

It is not Husseins job to prove that he DIDNT support them, but our job (or somebody's) to prove he DID.

If your wallet is stolen, Hail, and you point the finger at me, its YOUR job to prove I did it, not the other way around. I may be a slimy character with a bad track record, but that proves nothing.

[XPav]

Originally posted by Gary T
I heard an interesting segment on NPR about a sort of news service called Debka ( http://debka.com/ ). Apparently they have quite a web of information resources, though they won't cite any sources. The reporter/host said something to the effect that a typical reaction to some of their items is "That's ridiculous and unbelievable," until the same item gets reported in the mainstream press (with source attribution, I assume) a few weeks later.


Debka posts items with little fact checking. This means that they can beat "reputable" publications to a story, but it also means that they post large numbers of stories that turn out to be not true. They also don't do retractions.

So, what you've got is a large number of facts, some of which are true, some of which are slight inaccurate, and some of which are just completely wrong.

Its the Drudge Report of the middle east really.

[regnad kcin]

Sort of like Nostradamus actually.

[Hail Ants]

If your wallet is stolen, Hail, and you point the finger at me, its YOUR job to prove I did it, not the other way around. I may be a slimy character with a bad track record, but that proves nothing.Before September 11th I would agree with you. But after, I no longer feel terrorist supporting regimes deserve even the slightest benefit of doubt. They are guilty until proven innocent.

[Banquet Bear]

...well, this seems to be a train wreck of a General Question. :)

To find out a bit about the history of Iraq, go here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/737483.stm

Some other links that may be help are here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/iraq/29099.stm

This report from 1998

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/iraq/52796.stm

...I use BBC because that is my prefered source of unbiased news stories-yes I know somepeople have issues with the BBC, but I don't . :) There are some extremely knowledgeable people on the Straightdope who would be able to answer your question better than I can, (and some of them haven't posted here yet) but as this subject is so emotional, the answers you get from here may have a particular slant, as evidenced above. It may be an idea to have a good surf of the net-particularly to sites that you personally trust, to get the information that you seek.

[regnad kcin]

Sorry.

I just wanted to make it clear that 9/11 is not directly the reason for this invasion. 9/11 may have facilitated or expedited it, but it was in the works before 9/11.

[MrTuffPaws]

Hail Ants:

Not to troll, but we support terroist groups also. Seems like everyone does anymore.

[Lsura]

Originally posted by Banquet Bear
...well, this seems to be a train wreck of a General Question. :)



Yeah....I was sort of hoping to avoid that, but I was also afraid it was inevitable.


Thanks for the info and links y'all - it does help me a lot.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by regnad kcin
I just wanted to make it clear that 9/11 is not directly the reason for this invasion. 9/11 may have facilitated or expedited it, but it was in the works before 9/11. I agree, though it should be noted that Rumsfeld (who was Saddam's buddy in 1983) had been planning it since 1997. UK Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=370328) (yeah yeah it's Fisk, but read the facts).

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by Zebra
Its not like Saddam has to prove a negative. He doesn't have to show he has nothing. He has to show the process of dismantling. Yes we know he has them as he used them on the Kurds. We also have various spy outlets that inform us that he is rebuilding. (spy plane/sat photos, defectors, ect)


It is true that Hussein is not exactly asked to prove a negative. However, the demand has been made and complied with that a written presentation be made of whatever disarmament action he has taken. Such a written report is available for detailed and exhaustive analysis and criticism Our administration, on the other hand, at least for public consumption, sends representatives to talk shows and holds news conferences for oral presentation with a limited time for questions. If I read the opposition from European leaders correctly, there isn't a lot more done in the way of formal presentations to them or the UN. It is easy for someone making only a short, verbal response to a written report to say, " That's not good enough" since the verbal statement offers little opportunity to analyze it for its competence.

Paul Wolfowitz appeared on The News Hour With Jim Lehrer on 23 January and was asked why our claims aren't backed up with a more intelligence data. His answer was, that to do so could jeopardize lives. Well, lives are also jeopardized by going to war and the possibility of the death of an intelligence source should be balanced against the certainty of deaths among our armed forces in the event of a war. Failure to do all that we can to get the support of other countries and their people could easily lead to attacks on our forces in the support areas that will be need for a war in Iraq. The recent killing in Kuwait shows me that this isn't just a speculative concern. We are being asked to go to war, quite probably against the expressed wishes of a considerable part of the rest of the world. I really think we deserve more than assurances from Paul Wolfowitz that he has the requisite information and has interpreted it properly.

On the same show Dennis Hastert asserted that Iraq is training Al Qaeda forces in the north right now. When asked by the interviewer if, as Majority Leader, he had received briefings that proved to him that what he said was a fact he answered with the typical politicians' sidle. He said the he received intelligence briefings all the time and that in his mind, in his intution he was certain that was the case. As far as I'm concerned if he had received the briefings asked about the answer should have been; "Yes, I have received such briefings."

The Iraq affair was originated by GW for reasons that I'm not sure are those he has expressed. After a considerable delay from the time he started the agitation GW went before the UN and demanded action by that body and action was, and is being, taken. We are now presumeably enforcing UN resolutions regarding Hussein's military force. GW and Rumsfeld constantly demean the UN action with regard to that enforcement, and insist the US reserves the right to take unilateral action in "self-defense." However, I don't think they have shown that the need for such so-called self-defense action is urgent. They haven't made the case to me and many others for the immediacy of danger that would require the unilateral action that they propose. They haven't convinced me and many others that working out the disarmament of Iraq over a period of time, working through the UN at each step, would lead to immediate and mortal danger to our national security.

[bibliophage]

It's hard to avoid having this sort of thing turn into a debate. I think the question has been answered about as well as it can be in this forum, so I'll close this thread before it gets out of hand. Those who wish to continue a debate are invited to visit the GD forum.

bibliophage
moderator GQ