The claim was that by signaling his intentions to do a
‘first strike’ against Iraq, he was effectively declaring a ‘jihad’ against the Muslims. (I do agree that it’s more of a ‘jihad’ against Iraq vs. the Muslims)
You countered with the above, making the claim that the ‘first strike’ was done by OBL on 9/11.
We might supplement Sam’s analysis of best/worst case of starting a war with a best/worst case of Not going to war.
Best Case
– Iraq doesn’t attack neighboring countries with WMDs
– Iraq doesn’t attack them with conventional weapons
Worst Case
– Nuclear attack on Tel Aviv, London, New York or other city. This might be an attack by Saddam or by terrorists who he armed. Or,
– Saddam uses a nuclear threat to hold the US and ther rest of the world at bay while he conquers Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, thereby controling the Middle East oil supply.
There seems to be no doubt at all that Saddam is developing an arsenal of WMDS. What will he do with them? He doesn’t need them just to rule Iraq. Therefore, I find the best case above overly optimistic.
Well, hell, December, we have such weapons, have we not? Do we need them to rule North America?
elucidator: You might try actually reading what I wrote before running off about how I only care about money instead of lives. Particularly, you must have missed this:
How do you get from that that I framed the worst-case scenario solely in terms of money? I think your bias is showing again.
Wring: I was responding to the claim that Bush was "Getting us involved with the Muslim Jihad ". That claim simply makes no sense. It implies that there is a ‘muslim jihad’ that the U.S. was not part of before Bush came along, and he involved the U.S. in it.
You’re reading his comment as saying that a war with Iraq would ‘involve us in the muslim jihad’? If so, that implies that the U.S. is not already so engaged.
The fact is, Bin Laden declared Fatwa on the U.S. in 1988. Muslims have declared Jihad on the U.S. much earlier than that - anyone forget the 1993 World Trade Center attack? Or the Cole? Or the Khobar Towers bombing? All of these happened long before Bush came along.
And lest we forget, the U.S. has been bombing Iraq almost continuously since the end of the Gulf war, and Clinton himself launched an attack against Osama Bin Laden.
Islamist radicals have been fighting a war against the U.S. for two decades. Whatever Jihad exists between them and the U.S. has nothing to do with George Bush.
At one time we needed them to deter the Russians. Today, we have far less need for them. I’m proud of Bush that he decided to reduce the nuclear arsenal (and pissed at Clinton that he didn’t.)
From what I know, we could safely make reductions beyond what Bush has planned. I hope we do.
But, you cannot compare Saddam’s situation to ours. In 1991 he promised the world that he would eschew WMDs. By continuing to develop them, he invites being overthrown. So, he is willing to take an enormous risk to develop WMDs.
Either he’s nuts, or he has some plan to deploy them, or he plans to use them as a threat. Under any of these scenarios, we shouldn’t let him develop a WMD asenal.
elucidator
So just as a hypothetical question…what would Saddam do if he had the fire power and superiority that the U.S. possesses?
Saddam bin Laden is a terrible human being, this is not at issue. What is at issue is our status as a civilized nation.
It was we who established these rules. It was we who, rightly, hanged the Nazi war criminals. Thier crime? Waging aggresive war. “Pre-emptive” war, if you like. The distinction is entirely academic. We are signatories on any number of agreements, as well as the unwritten conventions of common decency.
Suppose a child molester has been released, and lives in my neighborhood. It is fairly common knowledge that the cure rate for child molesters is dismal. There is a considerable likelihood that this child molester will repeat his criminal behavior.
Am I justified in shooting him to prevent him from molesting my child? Surely, one would not hesitate if he were advancing upon my child with evil intent. But if I attack him based on nothing more than my presumption that he is up to no good, it is I who is the criminal.
This is true of nations as well as people.
Wow looks like I should have stayed right here instead of taking a walk with Mrs. Phlosphr.
First off Sam I said Bush was getting us involved with the Muslim Jihad. No one has to say it was already going on way before we entered the scene.
Of course you are not a ‘dupe of the conspiracy’. I understand your point. But I was trying to say Bush has a golden opportunity to carry out his agenda because of our current situation. And what the whole U.S. has gone through in the past year has shown two things. 1. we are capable of semi-precise bombing from afar with our technical prowess. 2. we will try our damndest not to get hit first again.
Pawn? I don’t know you…So I cannot say.
Also, I never want to be quoted as having said Bush is declaring war on a religion. Removing Saddam from power, is a priority. How Bush goes about it is the question the needs to be answered.
The justification for removing Saddam will hopefully come from the UN, they are privy to Saddam’s deevish side and know all too well what he is capable of – or will find out soon – and they knwo what he has done to his own people. Crimes of humanity will give Saddam his leave.
No facist dictator can or will get away with filling olympic swimming pools with acid and making people who go against his ideals take a swim. I’ll find the site.
Another voice here for the theory that the timing of this war push is solely for election purposes. Now is the time that the administration needs to distract from its failed economic policies, its failed corporate cronyism, its failure to advance our countries’ long term interests in any field.
Yes, Saddam Hussein is an evil man. You want a textbook example of how to get rid of him: Bush the Elder, building a case, gathering a coalition and making a priority. His only failure on that program was to stop short. Bush the Younger seems to lazy to bother to make the case to our allies, and figures it would be easier to just piss them off and do it himself. Of course, never having personally done anything in his waste of an existence, he doesn’t care how difficult it will be to do against the passive and active opposition of the whole world rather than with everyone else’s help.
Personally, I am tired of seeing my civil liberties cut back so drastically and so stupidly. Because the Republicans love tobacco companies, they have not banned lighters and matches from flights. Now that is just stupid. Damn stupid. Doesn’t anyone remember how hard the administration initially fought to keep from federalizing airline inspection? Does anyone here remember the “trifecta” remarks? They guy said it over and over. Does anyone here remember how many times Bush joked about how much easier his job would be if he was a dictator? Well I do.
This president is more dangerous than if Huey Long had been elected president.
It violates all norms of international law to conduct a preemptive war. That was what the entire Cold War was about. Most of the administration big shots were also Cold Warriors. No wonder the Soviets were so paranoid.
A fucking pre-emptive war? And without the backing of our allies? I and others I know oppose it.
And to quote our fearless leader from July 4, 2001: “Who cares what you think.”
Sam’s worst case scenario is seriously incomplete :
The worse case scenarios all involve WMD:
1)Saddam launches biological/chemicals weapons at Israel and kills thousands of Israelis. Israel retaliates with nuclear weapons causing chaos in the ME.
2)When Saddam’s has nothing to lose he throws caution to the winds and supplies Islamic terrrorists with his bio/chem weapons which they use to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.
3)The US defeats Saddam but is unable to control the bio/chem weapons hidden all over the place. Various Iraqi rogue elements and factions grab them not only causing chaos in Iraq but selling them to terrorists who use them again to kill Americans.
I am getting slightly tired of repeating these arguments which I have made about half a dozen times. The hawks don’t seem to make any counter-arguments but then carry on as if they don’ exist.
Frankly each of the above is a good deal more likely than the worst case scenario of not going to war where apparently Saddam, out of the blue, decides to commit suicide by pre-emptively attacking the West for no particular reason.
Not to mention the fact there there is no good reason to believe that a tough inspections regime won’t succeed in destroying most of Saddam’s unconventional weapons especially nuclear weapons.
No, you’re absolutely right. I was thinking only of the ways the military conflict against Saddam went. The worst-case scenario does indeed involve WMD. But unless Saddam hits Israel with a nuke, they’re not going to nuke him. Chemical weapons aren’t a true weapon of mass destruction when fired from rockets - Saddam might be able to kill a few hundred or even a few thousand people that way, but it’s really doubtful.
But certainly, ‘worst-case’ scenarios in this case are pretty dire.
Well, I think your first two worst case scenerios could apply whether the U.S. attacks or not. Even if we decide not to attack there could be other non-Western problems that could make Saddam feel he has nothing to lose. Old age, failing regime, who knows? Your third scenerio might not even come into play providing the U.S. has an occupation force after the invasion and ousting of Saddam.
“Well, I think your first two worst case scenerios could apply whether the U.S. attacks or not.”
I think the point is that is that if the US attacks it’s a near certainty that Saddam has nothing to lose whereas otherwise it’s merely a possibility. Or in other words a US attack significantly increases the probability of a desparate regime doing desparate things.
As for occupation there will be a fairly big gap between the time Saddam’s regime falls and an occupation army is in place throughout Iraq. It would only take one enterprising rogue grabbing hold of some weapons and selling them to Al-queda and American security would be seriously damaged. As soon as Saddam’s regime falls the US military will be in a race against time with various Iraqi elements out to grab the weapons. Since the US doesn’t have much of an idea where these weapons are in the first place there is little reason to believe it will succeed in controlling every single weapons facility.
.
Is it yet approaching the time when we have to seriously consider discussing the president’s mental stability ?
I belive they (President Bush, VP, Rice, Powell, etc), have intelligence that makes the case that there is real reason for the steps the U.S. military is taking now. I think there is a reason and I do not think it has to do with the elections or the economy. I just refuse to believe that the President would put U.S. troops in harms way to distract Americans from domestic issues. I believe they will be presenting this intelligence to the closest allies very soon. Very soon. I think we are headed for war within the next 10 to 15 days.
Well war may not be good for business in most instances, however when the US can win over a lucrative oil deal with Iraq off France and China, it will pay itself off easily.
Do you think this is a wacko conspiracy theory Sam Stone?
I think it is widely acknowleged that the war is over oil. Think of the economic benefits for the US when we have easy access to the Iraqi oil.
Yes.
Not only is there no evidence at all for this theory, there’s a lot of evidence against it. Note that Bush 41 was in an ideal position to take over Iraq oil fields. He had every excuse in the world, after the Iraqi behavior. He had military control. What did America do?
We put out the oil well fires that Saddam had started and we left Iraq to continue to control their oil fields.
Just some comments/opinions:
My opinion:
The thing is that there is globally some thousends of firms that gains from war.
War is the biggest industry in the world, if You did not know…
I bet my ass that they have people hanging around in Washington, and other capitals as well, giving every politician their truth.
Regardless best case or worst case:
Nowaday wars is just not a question about two nations fighting. It concerns the whole world, and does it really matter if Dem. or Rep. is bombing. And then an Adolf-type or Josef-type is responding. Responding globally, if he is able to.
And if we
want to get rid of the guys that are ready to expand a war, in case of war, our list will be very long, including our selves.
USA and any other clear thinking nation wants clear wars (when they have to go to war). Wars that begins and then ends.
A clear thinking nation does not go on war on the other side of the globe without allies.
There is certainly an Adolf or Josef born somewhere and he gets probably a mental orgasm when he reads what Bush has said, according to the OP.
We had two lunatics killing people in the W.W.II, Hitler and Stalin, or three if we put Mao also on the map… After that we have had at least a dozen as a leader of some country, but fortunately they have “only” ruled (are ruling) countries like Libya,
Cambodia, North Korea, Belo-Russia, Uganda etc.
When the luna-guys comes to power in a powerful country, the game is open for them:
“We just do as USA. We also want to save the world!”
The world have about still some options:
1) Forget everything and continue the war against terrorism as civilized countries has done: Germany and Italy comes first into my mind.
2) Begin a war with allies like UN backing them.
3) USA begins a never-ending war against terrorism, attacking countries. (I can not prove that we have an never ending war, but it is obvious).
4) Put out other madmen as well. It will mean a war every second year or so.
5) Clearly there are other options as well.
To speak that a war will end at a certain point, is just a result of playing to much of The Monopoly-game or computer games.
When did Bush, the older’s war actually end?
The only real solution is to separate, isolate and jail the terrorists, one by one.
(Prove me wrong on this one above and I will be ever so happy!)
That was what Germany and Italy did. It took them more than 10 years.
Do not breed new generations of terrorists. That will be an endless fight/war/terror, what ever.
What is the options of the terrorists? What do they want?:
1) A never ending war, anarchy and chaos.
2) A war that is not clear and which spreads to other countries as well.
3) That the western culture fails, restrictions in human rights, destruction of the core of the fundament of the western heritage, destabilization in the industrialized community, these countries playing against each other.
4) Recruits. New blood to their ranks.
Anyone who gives them this, is a real Santa Claus of the terrorists.
According to the monthly news, there are terrorists of bin Laden in some 15 - 25 countries.
They are just waiting. And waiting. They have time, but they need new recruits.
And they need them badly.
Who will hand them over to them?
Sam:
Well, to begin with, I disagree with the following:
…although we may be at cross-purposes somewhat, here.
This is more true today, I think, than it was even a few years ago. In our current age of military high-technology, with its smart bombs and so on, the US is in the position to wage war with relatively little risk to the life and limbs of its soldiers. According to this article, for example, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan experienced a kill ratio of 600 to 1. These days, we risk relatively few American lives in our wars. This implies that it makes some good economic sense to go to war, at least in the short term, while the major disadvantage to war – loss of American life and the domestic upheaval that loss tends to provoke – has been drastically curtailed.
2) Wars do not necessarily diminish the capacity of an economy to produce goods and services. As you note yourself, wars are particularly good for certain sectors of the economy, such as defense industries. In addition, colonial wars of conquest open up new territories and their natural resources for exploitation by the colonial conquerors. So even if the actual economic costs of military action can be rather exorbitant (primarily for taxpayers), the dividends can be substantial. Access to new sources of cheap oil, for example, could lead to a real economic boon for an industry-based economy.
The potential enrichment of the nation-state was arguably the primary driving force behind mercantilist policies of colonialism during the 18th and 19th centuries. Your claim seems to focus too narrowly on the results of WWI and WWII in Europe, total wars that almost obliterated the economic structure of entire societies in Europe. Little wonder that there were recessions after those events; but what about other wars?
Pursuant to this point, the Washington Post published this article about the potential affect a US-Iraq war would have on the world oil market. An excerpt:
I find that last claim to be particularly absurd. What do they mean with the phrase “substantive way”? They’re plotting to invade the country with the world’s second largest oil reserve, and they haven’t been taking that into consideration in their planning? Yeah, sure – and my momma’s the Pope.
Again, with regard to your best case and worst case scenarios, you seem mostly focused on the actual cost of the war, in US dollars, rather than its potentially profitable outcome. Personally, I figure they’ll just bomb him into submission and then – well, who knows? Set up some sort of puppet regime, I suspect. More ominously, and at the risk of sounding somewhat paranoid, I perceive significant strategic gains from such an action. If I were planning some sort of long-term, military action of global scope – let us say, a campaign to rid the world of states that failed to appease US interest, under the guise of a “war against terror” – then my first move would probably be to secure, if at all possible, a large supply of cheap oil – coupled, of course, with a declaration that I now consider the act of attacking other states to be a legitimate posture of self-defense.
jacksen9: (In response to my question regarding China)
Yeah, well, unfortunately, most of the rest of the world, especially in Latin America and the Middle East, doesn’t have the opportunity to enjoy those rights – in large part due to US foreign policies. So my guess is that they are more concerned about being on the receiving end of an American smart bomb.
Well, I agree that the issue goes deeper than merely economic and domestic political considerations, although they also probably play a role in the decision making process. But aside from you charming naiveté regarding the nobility of US political leadership, do you have anything substantial upon which you can base the above claim?
Is this thread about the latest US foreign policy declaration, or about our justifications for attacking Iraq?
I defy anyone to call me a “tedious conspiracy theorist”. :mad:
And I absolutely DARE SamStone to prove that I’m “left wing”. Or “right-wing”. Or any other kind of knee-jerk “posts before she thinks” political “wing”.
In other words: Cite, buddy. :mad:
You oughta get your facts straight before you spout off about the character of other posters.
Humph.
The fact remains that war is good for business. The Cold War years, overall, were boom times for the entire military/industrial/aerospace complex, and since the end of the Cold War, they’ve been cutting back like mad. If you’ve got some kind of cite that proves otherwise, by all means, trot it out.
Here are my cites. Match 'em, if you can, and not with a lot of abstract econo-speak, if you please. Cites.
http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/usaf_wingforce_structure/afwfstructure_article.html
http://hrusa.org/hrmaterials/sustecon/lessons/lesson7.html
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind93/chap3/doc/3s293.htm
These cites are from the United States Air Force, the Human Rights Resource Center of the University of Minnesota, and the National Science Foundation–are they conspiracy theory websites? :mad:
When military bases and war materiel factories and research and development laboratories open up, the towns where they’re located are jubilant. It means “jobs”, and it also means income from selling things to the folks at the base, or the folks who come to town to work in the factory, or research and development lab. Food, clothing, entertainment, gasoline, videos, Slurpees.
And when military bases and war materiel factories close, the towns where they’re located hurt.
And you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that. :rolleyes:
You also don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that George W. has many friends in business and industry, that he’s the most industry-friendly president to come along in a while (he’s the one who wants to open Gates of the Arctic to oil drilling, remember?) I’m not talking about all the conspiracy theories about his past or present business dealings–I’m talking about the Real World, where you go along to get along, where one hand washes the other, where Big Business does favors for Big Government, and vice versa. That’s just the way it works, no conspiracy theories required. :rolleyes: