The same could probably be said about the U.S.S Liberty.
(Only that was Israel)
And so did a lot of other leaders, some we supported, some we didn’t. TECHNICALLY, the Founding Fathers got power by killing a lot of soldiers. If you want to be really anal about it. 
I tend to agree with your position. I want to see some firm evidnce, or if they are going with what they have now, I want a full agreement from Congress and the support of major allies.
The thing is, I think they have it. I’ve been doing a lot of reading through various sites like globalsecurity.org, trying to piece together the U.S. administration’s perspective, and there’s a lot of damning stuff just in the public record.
But we’ll see. Like I said, this week Bush is going to be making the case in front of Congress. Today he is meeting with Blair. Blair himself has a dossier on Iraq that he’s going to release to parliament, if not the public. If the British Parliament starts to line up behind Blair after receiving this information, that will be a good hint that there is classified information that is damning.
We’ll all know soon enough.
Henry B – thanks for the kind words. I certainly appreciate your participation on this message board.
Yep, I’m afraid so. I have recently seen surveys showing that majorities in two different countries believe that the US was partly the cause of the 9/11 attack. Canada was one; I forget the other.
Even many Americans are in denial. I hear “arguments” for the proposition that “Even if Saddam gets nuclear weapons, they’re no threat to us” So, one asks why they would be no threat to us, and gets insubstantial answers:
“Saddam would be nuts to use them against us” - like we know he’s sane?
“There’s no delivery system” -* like a bomb couldn’t be stuck into the trunk of a car and driven in from Canada or Mexico?*
“Saddam wouldn’t give nukes to terrorists, because he’s unconnected with al Qaeda” – like we know that for sure?
Do I think that the threat of global depression is worth the military elimination of one of the world’s leading violants of human rights and the greatest threat to international security in a volatile region? Absolutely and with no apologies. In fact, short of retaliatory strikes I can think of no better reason to employ military strength than the preservation of the world economy (which, you will remember, is closely linked to peace/violence). Keep in mind, we’re not talking a few more dollars a month at the pump- if an army travels on its stomach then a society travels on petroleum- protect the Spice.
Another enormous fear of Hussein is that he is aging and there are reports frequently he is in ill health. He does not care about posterity- he won’t be here- and his son and probably successor Uday is believed to be Rehoboam to his Solomon. There is no hard evidence to believe for a moment that either would hesitate to use nuclear weapons.
And I just got my green card on this planet, so I’m staying here for the moment.
[QUOTE]
*And since I brought up this point, I must object to your characterization that it was intended to vilify the US. I have no qualms about Truman’s decision to drop the bomb. It is relevent to US foreign policy with regards to how we are perceived abroad.
**
How we are perceived abroad should include that we used atomic power, developed by us in a defensive war as a preventative measure not to allow the Third Reich to gain control of the weapon first, in order to bring to a close the greatest bloodbath in history by crippling the nation which had without provocation sunk our Pacific fleet four years earlier and made walking skeletons out of our POWs even as they raped most of mainland Asia. If this is not attached to the perception of us then the perceivers are not thinking rationally and there is no pleasing them, so we should not concern ourselves with PR but with the facts.
Well, this is heartening: sanity is breaking out, even on the right. With, as usual, the stubborn resistance of some.
Much of what I hear sounds like Miss Cleo has been drafted to the Homeland Security Dept. and is issuing predictions on what Goddam Saddam is going to do.
Is he nuts? No. He has been sitting on his hands ever since Desert Storm. Evil, vicious, etc. he is. Crazy he ain’t. Stalin makes a good comparison to Saddam. Cold, brutal, calculating, and paranoid.
About the nukes: does he have them? No. A nuke is a very complex bit of machinery, you cant just cobble one together and send it by Fed Ex. Most importantly, it must, repeat, must be tested. There is no way to quietly set off a test nuke. So he hasn’t got one.
One remarkable result of Bush diplomacy is the growing rapprochment of Iraq and Iran. Our Leader has inspired peace and mutual cooperation between two states that used to hate each other, and now cordially hate us! Way to go, Georgie!
As to the “Kill for gas” argument…if you are on some sort of medication, check your dosage level. If you are not, get some. Now.
elucidator wrote: “About the nukes: does he have them? No. A nuke is a very complex bit of machinery, you cant just cobble one together and send it by Fed Ex. Most importantly, it must, repeat, must be tested. There is no way to quietly set off a test nuke. So he hasn’t got one.”
There are more than one hundred “suitcase nukes” missing from the Soviet arsenal. Is it not conceivable that an oil rich ruler who has been thwarted in his own attempts to build nuclear weapons is the owner of one or more?
elucidator wrote: “As to the “Kill for gas” argument…if you are on some sort of medication, check your dosage level. If you are not, get some. Now.”
Please cease and desist with the ad homs. Thanks.
Well, its not necessarily an ad hom. It could have been addressed to anyone making the blitheringly insane argument that we should kill folks in order to keep our SUV’s well fueled.
Oh, wait. You are the only one making that argument.
Guilty as charged!
I will now trudge to the river, there to perform the Ancient Tasmanian Ritual of Self-Abasement, accompanied by a Chorus of Bitter Virgins, intoning dirges of Woe and Humiliation.
Heck, elucidator, I wouldn’t even call him paranoid. A hell of a lot of people are out to get him, after all. But you’re correct–there is no evidence whatsoever that he is anything other than a brutal dictator, and clearly not a nut case.
Actually, I had a SUV exclusion in that- read it again. IF it were only to keep our SUVs fueled, it would be an act of unconscionable agression. However, it doesn’t end or even begin there. Will you concede that the price of petroleum is a vital influence on the global economy (ask Jimmy Carter if you need to “Phone a Friend”)? And that the world is in a vulnerable phase economically due to the transitioning of the G8 economic modalities, the strengthening and coming out of the southeast Asian economies, the reliance worldwide on imports, etc. etc.? And that the majority of human misery comes from economic want and that this comes from the of erosion of base needs and that transportation supplies the goods that supplies these needs?
War is about economics- always has been, always will be. (Is it any wonder that the worst war in world history immediately followed the worst depression since the Industrial Revolution?)Human rights violations will never be eradicated by it and no standing army will ever spend enough time in a field to destroy a brutal dictatorship when there are not major economic incentives to justify it.
I think the hypocrisy of wrapping them in ideology is ridiculous and outdated. Personally, I trust America’s leadership of the removal of Saddam more than I do any other nation I can think of (except perhaps Canada or Switzerland, and neither of them have the standing military to pull it off).
And in a story closely related to Saddam, the Harry Potter toy is wreaking havoc with little girl’s psyches: http://www.pagesix.com/pagesix/pagesix.htm
There is no evidence to believe Hitler was insane. (Drug addict and racist, yes, believer in pseudoscience, yes, godawful military tactician, yes, but not insane.) The same can be said of Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. (Why did we not fight a major offensive against Pol, who percentagewise killed more of his own people than anybody in history? Because he had nothing we needed, save for some prime spots on the opium trade, but that would be a major hijack.) Insanity isn’t required to make a major military blunder or to wreak irreversible havoc.
Please bring me a nut log on your way back if you pass a Stuckeys. (According to Heloise, cinnamon and sugar mixed together will make a virgin less bitter, though it didn’t work for Isaac Newton.)
Neither were Canada, Europe, or Japan a part of the US, yet American resources were used to protect them during 40+ years of the Cold War. Shouldn’t we be equally vigilant in defending our ally Israel? As for them not being a neighbor of Iraq, they do not share a border, but are definitely threatened. Remember the 39 Scud missile attacks on Israel during the Gulf War?
I’m not saying that the defense of Israel is the only reason to attack Iraq, but it is A reason.
milroyj wrote: “I’m not saying that the defense of Israel is the only reason to attack Iraq, but it is A reason.”
On a similar note to what milroyj wrote, I’m not saying that gas prices are the only reason to attack either, but they are not a minor concern (which they are so often addressed as being in the “give up the SUVs and you won’t have to worry about it” oversimplified media and blog postings).
Assuming that :
-The “suitcases” actually exist
-That they’re actually missing
-That they’re still in operating order (they would need maintenance)
-That someone else than the russian can operate them
Then, indeed, it’s conceivable that an oil rich ruler could have gotten his hands on them (say Saudi Arabia) or that a powerful communist ruler hass gotten his hands on them (say, North-Korea) or that the leader of a former USSR republic has gotten his hands on them (say Kazaksthan), etc…It’s even conceivable that an existing nuclear power, the USA, or China, or Israel, etc…has them…
clairobscur wrote: “It’s even conceivable that an existing nuclear power, the USA, or China, or Israel, etc…has them…”
It’s also conceivable that Oprah Winfrey has them, but I seriously doubt it. More likely they’re in the hands of somebody unable to visibly construct nuclear weaponry. While Saddam’s far from the only likely candidate, he is A likely candidate.
Oops! Premature post (it happens to all men at some time).
"*Assuming that
-The “suitcases” actually exist "
Since Russian officials attest to it (and they tend to keep records on stuff like that) and how to deal with the devices has been addressed in the House of Reps., it would seem a safe assumption. Of course, do any of us “really” exist, or is DesCartes just having a reaction to some bad cheese?
“-That they’re actually missing”
I see this as one and the same with the above.
“-That they’re still in operating order (they would need maintenance)”
Iraq has built nuclear reactors; they obviously have people equipped to maintain them.
“-That someone else than the russian can operate them”
That part’s true. A Cyrillic handbook can be a Russian bear to read. But I’m pretty sure that operability was a dealbreaker at the time of sale. (Plus, Iraq has purchased missile guidance systems from Russia, so I’m reasonably sure they know what they’re doing.)
A minor point, but they don’t keep good records, and never have.
Why so? According to you, USSR build them and it seems to me they were able to visibly construct nuclear weaponry…If the USSR found they could be of some use, why not China?
Yes. One amongst a hundred or so…Sorry, I won’t buy arguments like “since it’s conceivable that Irak has done this or that, we should attack them”, especially when you refer to things as unlikely as having nuclear suitcases. Because this could apply to half the world, at the very least…
I won’t adress your points concerning the likehood that the “nuclear suitcases” are still around, since there has been several threads on this topic in the past…