That’s good because you’d lose. The evidence is overwhelming.
Sanctions aren’t working and never have. He is a menace who never should have allowed to live in the first place. The alternatives are to
1- allow him to blow smoke up the arses of the UN weapon’s inspectors (“c’mon in— don’t look in that room I didn’t make the bed… well nice seeing you”) and resume under sanctions and in power
2- allow him back into the International Community, human rights and threat of regional holocaust be damned
3- bomb him, bomb his ashes, bomb his ashes ashes, and install a U.S. friendly government that also will agree to not gas the Kurds
There are no easy answers, but I do not believe the U.S. is simply trying to play chest thumping alpha male for considering number 3.
Sorry, I haven’t gotten the hang of posting replies to specific posts yet. (By the way, how do you hyperlink a word or phrase?)
This is how the above should have appeared. Clair’s words are in “”.
"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? "
Are we quite on the same page here? The USSR, which was indeed capable of visibly building nuclear weaponry, constructed the suitcase nukes. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, billions of dollars (US$) of their military arsenal, including more than 100 suitcase nukes (easily transported by a pedestrian yet capable of radiating all of NYC and destroying a larger land mass than Yankee Stadium) went missing. Best evidence is that it is in the hands of terrorists, with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden being two often cited names. (There are many others.)
China has most definitely experimented with nuclear weapons. It is far more likely Saddam would have these devices than China because
1- China has the military power to openly test nuclear weapons with relative impunity and in fact has done so with devices far more powerful than suitcase nukes. Unlike Iraq, they can put tens of millions of troops in the field and they have enough of an agricultural and manufacturing base to feed a long term war. (There would be much rationing and starvation, but they could do it.) The threat of U.S. military reprisal is therefore not high- a war with the largest country on Earth is about the last thing Bush would start because it would be decades before either side won, while Iraq is much more bite size.
2- Iraq wants nuclear weapons and in fact has attempted to manufacture them. Thanks be to Allah they have always been thwarted, usually by Israel.
Examples (cites available):
1980- Hussein’s main nuclear expert Yayha El Meshad is killed in Paris by Mossad agents
1981- Israeli strike teams destroy Saddam’s nuclear reactor at Osirak
1990- Canadian aeronautics consultant Gerald Bull, who had been working with Hussein since before Osirak in a $100 billion program to greatly improve Scud range and small scale nuclear missiles in the war with Iraq, was gunned down in his hotel room in Belgium (probably by a CIA or Mossad operative, and in either case the assassin should get a medal and a free trip to Dollywood)
There are other pre-Desert Storm examples, but you get the drift. Post-Desert Storm you know the story: weapons inspectors, U.N. sanctions, swimming pools, movie stars- Saddam doesn’t dare experiment openly with nuclear weapons as he knows the allies will be back, but as the song goes “I can dream cain’t I, or am I wrong”… he can sure as hell buy them on the world’s most lucrative black market.
Is it a certainty he has suitcase nukes or other nuclear capabilities? No- certainly I’ve never seen them at any of his Friday night “dinner and a Reese Witherspoon movie parties” (he’s evil, but while he continues to serve yak quiche like that I’m there whenever he has the party), but the odds are very good that he has something he shouldn’t.
“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…”
As said, I don’t think it’s unlikely he has something as or more powerful than a nuclear suitcase, nor did I ever say we should attack him. I made the nuke response when somebody mentioned that he can’t have nuclear weapons because he’s never tested them- this isn’t true. (Remember- I’m the one who says we should kill Saddam and every orphan we can bomb so I can get an SUV without having to run up the Chevron card.)
"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… "
That’s good because you’d lose. The evidence is overwhelming.
Sanctions aren’t working and never have. He is a menace who never should have been allowed to live in the first place. The alternatives are to
1- allow him to blow smoke up the arses of the UN weapon’s inspectors (“c’mon in— don’t look in that room I didn’t make the bed… well nice seeing you”) and resume under sanctions and in power
2- allow him back into the International Community, human rights and threat of regional holocaust be damned
3- bomb him, bomb his ashes, bomb his ashes’ ashes, and install a U.S. friendly government that also will agree to not gas the Kurds
There are no easy answers, but I do not believe the U.S. is simply trying to play chest thumping alpha male for considering number 3.
Nope. That’s because it has already been lenghtly discussed and because it would a hijack. Actually, I never heard about the “nuclear suitcases” before threads on this topic appeared on the SD boards. I formed my opinion on the basis of these threads and by reading the links provided by posters. And definitely, the evidences aren’t overwhelming, as you state, since the opinion I formed was that they aren’t a credible threat. So, if you want to know why I think so, just read the old threads and you’ll be as informed as I am…
But anyway, it’s not the topic at hand. My position is, once again, that even assuming that such suitcases would exists, there’s zero reason to believe they’re in the hands of S. Hussein. You’re just stating : I believe that something dangerous (the suitcase) exist somewhere in the world, and since the somewhere could be Irak, that’s a good enough reason to attack Irak. Well…fine…and you could use exactly the same argument to justify an attack against pretty much any country in the world. The country could have the suitcases. For all you know, they could be in my basement…
Now about the arguments you gave concerning the reasons why Irak would be more likely to have these suitcases (still assuming they exist) :
What are these evidences?
Yes, and the USSR was in the same situation and nevertheless build these suitcases. So, once again, if the USSR had an use for them, why China wouldn’t?
Yes. And it was the same concerning USSR. Nevertheless, they build these suitcases. So, why China wouldn’t want them too?
Also, why do you assume that a country would want to have weapons only in case of war with the US? China is involved in many regional issues. They could want want to use weapons against Taiwan, against India, against Vietnam, to name a few…You’re a little bit too “USA-centered” …
So, I don’t think your arguments against China having the suitcases are convincing at all. But you’re free to now explain to me why you think it’s unlikely that say, Israel, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, North Korea have these suitcases. When you’ll have finished with these ones, I’ll gave you another list. When you’ll have demonstrated that there are good reasons to believe that most countries in the world don’t have these weapons, and that the only one left is Irak, your argument will be a little more convincing. Of course, it would be much simpler to provide an evidence that Irak has these weapons, but obviously you don’t have any…
Yes. S. Hussein has tried to produce nuclear weapons in the past. That still doesn’t give us any evidences that he has nuclear suitcases.
I’m hapy you’re admitting it…
You’ve failed to provide any argument backing your opinion that the odds are very good that he has nuclear suitcases.
Finally, if S. Hussein has such weapons, why doesn’t Bush tell us so? That would be a good argument to convince us of the necessity of a preventive attack. But i don’t think he ever even mentionned this risk…
clairobscure:
"You’ve failed to provide any argument backing your opinion that the odds are very good that he has nuclear suitcases. "
I am guessing from your syntax and spelling that you are not a native English speaker, so I’ll give the benefit of a doubt that you have misunderstood my point rather than deliberately constructing a straw man. I never claimed that Saddam has “suitcase nukes”- I stated that it is a possibility, not a probability, thereby relieving myself of any burden of conclusive argumentative proof other than to show motive and opportunity, and this I have done. His proven possession of suitcase nukes is not and has never been my thesis. Again off point, but the reason that China and other superpowers would in all likelihood not be the purchasers is because they have the personnel and the resources to construct their own devices, rather the same way that if several hundred M1 rifles had disappeared from a Tennessee National Guard base it would be more logical to assume they had been stolen by a local militia group (with inside help) than it would to assume they were now in a Kentucky or Mississippi Guard unit, who would really have no motive to steal them, if that makes any sense.
In case you haven’t seen the news, we are trying to go in now and ascertain Saddam’s armaments. In addition, ever since September 11 there has been a major problem with classified information leaking into the press, so the White House is not surprisingly close mouthed at the moment (more than they should be, yes, but at least to a degree understandably)- if there were clear proof that there is a nuclear weapon and baby milk factory at 123 Aladdin Lane, Bagdhad, it wouldn’t be terribly wise to broadcast it, would it? And since we’re not actually at war, there’s no reason to justify an invasion at this point. However, there is obviously some reason that Bush, Blair, and others are beginning to hover, and “they know something we don’t” is a pretty safe assumption.
May I ask your reasons for doubting the existence of missing suitcase nukes in spite of Russian, CIA, Congressional, and other mention of them?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by clairobscur *
“So, if you want to know why I think so, just read the old threads and you’ll be as informed as I am…”
As informed as you are? In all due respect, you opened this paragraph with the line "Actually, I never heard about the “nuclear suitcases” before threads on this topic appeared on the SD boards. "
"But anyway, it’s not the topic at hand. "
The one thing we’re in agreement on.
“…there’s zero reason to believe they’re in the hands of S. Hussein.”
You said yourself that he was a suspect two posts back (one of a hundred, but a suspect no less). Are you rescinding that statement?
“You’re just stating : I believe that something dangerous (the suitcase) exist somewhere in the world, and since the somewhere could be Irak, that’s a good enough reason to attack Irak.”
Yes, that’s the only reason we should consider attack. Well, that and the 3 million other reasons given on these boards and in the media.
“Well…fine…and you could use exactly the same argument to justify an attack against pretty much any country in the world.”
How many nations have a strong grip on a vital resource, a proven history of overunning other countries, a leader who makes speeches calling for the death of all Jews and refers to America as Satan, who is hated even by other Muslims, who has consistently refused to comply with international sanctions, who deliberately caused one of the worst environmental catastrophes of the 20th century when he withdrew from the nation he illegally occupied (the explosion of the Kuwait oil wells), etc etc ad nauseum. It’s not like we’re planning to napalm Paraguay for housing Joseph Mengele here.
“For all you know, they could be in my basement…”
If I were to learn that you spent more than 100 billion in the 1980s alone on arms buildup, a proven history of nuclear interests and of the other offenses above, I would certainly issue a bench warrant to search said basement. For now, just step away from the vehicle…
** AZCowboy** wrote:
quote:
"Like most Americans (and sailor), I would like to see both congressional and UN support before we go plunging into war."
I fully agree.
Do like You (we) did in the question of Afghanistan.
What I am afraid of, is the situation where any country can attack another country, just because “there is a bad guy ruling”.
China could attack someone, Russia could attack someone. Iraq could attack someone, (just have to wait for the next luna-guy elected). (Is Iran a good or bad country?, Your choise?).
I understand that there is nobody attacking someone just now, but within some years??
Furthermore, if US take the line that it can alone say what is good and what is bad, the list of countries can be something like 10 - 15 countries…
And if You just go to a war alone, because You feel so, not because the world community feel that it is threatned, what will happen?
I think that in the question of Afghanistan, where solidiers was fighting a terrorist movement, there was not so many new potential terrorists born.
But to attack a country, just from the blue, if You look through the eyes of that countries citizens, will breed thousands and thousends of new terrorists.
And what do bin Laden-terrorists want, as the first step:
- war(s), just anywhere, as many as possible, otherwise their “movement” will not grow.
- Anarchy. Just that we will over-rule the westenern democratic thinking.
- Split us to different camps.
This was a little bit sidestepping, but if Saddam has hurted or will hurt US/the world so much, why do not any other country see it?
And every year there is popping up some crazy guy somewhere…
Within 10 - 30 years, there will be more and more countries like Iraq, with capacity to make mass-destruction-weapons.
The only thing they need is money and a luna-guy as a leader.
How do You think a citizen in a villiage, in a “far-away-country”, will see the difference between:
a) On April 14, 1993, Saddam wanted to assassinate former President George Bush while he was in Kuwait.
b) Bush begins a war in order to “take out” Saddam.
If You were The Devils Advocate for bin Laden in that willage, do You think that You would have big troubles to point out “that Saddam is bad and Bush is Satan”???
If You think it would be impossible to make this willagers to believe it, let me give You some tools to be more “believeble”:
- A religion (which one, that’s not important, any known book will do).
- The fact that half of the neighbouring willage, or some relatives in the neighbouring city, were bombed to pieces.
Do You still think it would be impossible to recruit new “sacred solidiers” to become terrorists?
With the whole world backing up, You could have a chance to limit this. But You need the whole UN with it’s health-, education-, and whatever organisations to build up a new Iraq. In this case You can limit the damage a little bit. And the whole world has to help in this, if we want to dam the negative results as much as possible.
But only to send there US organisations??? I do not need a chrystal-ball to see that they will be target number 1 in Iraq.
And then You have the final answer to the question:
"Has Iraq ever done anything to USA?"
And the propaganda in the Northern Hemisphere will be, once again:
Citizens of Iraq = terrorists
Muslims = terrorists
Arabs = terrorists
A fly on the back of a camel = terrorist
(Ok, this last one, about camels, was a little bit exaggerated).
The Advocates of the Devil of the Southern hemisphere will be filled with happines and joy as the endless spiral of wars and conflicts will continue.
And the Advocates of the Devil in the Northern Hemisphere will “retaliate and preempt”. Endlessly.
Have a nice day.
Like I said earlier in this thread, I’m a bit slow. Could you explain to me the risk of broadcasting this information? If the upside is rallying world-wide support for “regime change by force”, what is the down-side, exactly?
Well, if our source of that information is, say, a top-level Iraqi mole, you wouldn’t want to release that information and therefore shut down a line of intelligence.
Or, if the information comes from a new satellite that can see things the enemy doesn’t think we can see, you wouldn’t want that to be known.
Or, if the information came from a special forces team operating inside Iraq, you wouldn’t want that to be known.
There are many, many good reasons why some classified information is too sensitive to make available to the public.
Sam, I understand protecting the source. In most cases, you can reveal the intelligence without exposing the source. And that is particularly true with the hypothetical that Sampiro put forward.
Freedom of Information does not now, never has, and never will extend to military operations. To release too much would be a recipe for absolute disaster.
IF (Hollywood sign letters word) a UN Coalition involving the US should mount a military campaign against Iraq, THEN it should become public knowledge that this is to take out a weapons factory or to end the production of biochemical weapons or because proof has been found that al-Quaeda operatives are harbored in Umm Qasr or whatever, but even so there should be no details that could endanger the lives of troops. The phrase “loose lips sink ships” wasn’t just quaint propaganda, and do you really trust CNN or MSNBC to go with the good of a military operation over a major scoop?
Personally, I have mixed feelings about a campaign against Iraq, and I loathe Bush II, but I don’t begrudge him the secrecy in this matter.
Dick Cheney, speaking on ‘Meet the Press’ this morning, said, "If we could divulge the intelligence we have to all our allies, they would be on board with us. "
The U.S. has ‘tiers’ amongst allies, and their security restrictions limit which information can be divulged to whom. In the first tier is Great Britain, and probably only Great Britain. And Tony Blair is fully on board. That would lend credence to the idea that there is intelligence out there that Blair has been given, but not many others, if any.
Canada would normally be in the next tier of allies, and Bush is meeting with Chretien on Monday. It will be interesting to see if Canada changes its tune towards war with Iraq after that meeting.
Unfortunately, Canada’s credibility has been so degraded by the Chretien government that I’m not sure the U.S. feels we can still be trusted with their intelligence. Hell, I’m not sure -I- trust Canada that much, and I’m Canadian. Chretien is an opportunistic weasel. But we’ll see.
If Bush were to say tonight “we have proof that Saddam has developed a cloaking device that can shield his star destroyers but we are not at liberty to reveal how we know that”, there would be no way of judging the accuracy of the statement. To validate it would require stating "we learned this from this photo and these sources… " and every major media center in 34 countries would be clamoring for the exclusive on how we know, what we know, where it is, etc etc…
If Bush were to say tonight “we have proof that Saddam has developed a cloaking device that can shield his star destroyers but we are not at liberty to reveal how we know that”, there would be no way of judging the accuracy of the statement. To validate it would require stating "we learned this from this photo and these sources… " and every major media center in 34 countries would be clamoring for the exclusive on how we know, what we know, where it is, etc etc… The president does not require public approbation to launch an attack (to quote Archie Bunker, “you couldn’t get a decent war off the ground that way”).
Oh, Cheney did divulge one piece of intelligence - Apparently, the U.S. has solid evidence that Iraq has been trying to acquire a special type of aluminum tubing used in the Uranium enrichment process.
I did some research on this tubing this morning. It appears to be used in a centrifuge rotor. Uranium Hexaflouride is centrifuged, and this type of aluminum is required to prevent corrosion in the rotors.
It also turns out that Iraq had very advanced rotors of this type under construction before the Gulf War. So their purchase of this aluminum would indicate that they have rebuilt their enrichment facilities to the point where they are ready to line their rotors.
“solid evidence”. Hmmmmm. But we can’t see it, 'cause its secret. But we should simply trust them.
So Iraq has been “trying” to buy this super tubing. Which has no other purpose but in the production of atomic bombs. “Trying” means attempted but failed? Well, it must, must’nt it? Otherwise they would say “they got it!” Which means, they don’t have the capacity to produces nukes.
Even if they build it, they will have to test it. Only a drooling moron deploys a complicated weapon without testing. You can’t hide a nuke test because…well, its a nuke, isn’t it.
Nope, Mr. Cheney. No sale.
Sam, I heard that same report, and that is EXACTLY the type of specific charges that I would like the administration to release.
Sampiro, whoa! slow down. I’ve never suggested that information that could put the safety of agents or special forces should EVER be divulged in advance. And I think you’ve missed my point from earlier posts in this thread.
I think Bush has to “sell” this to the American public, in addition to the allies.
And I don’t think he has to “prove” his intelligence, revealing sources or capabilities. Like this SDMB GD forum, he has to put the proposition forward. It’s up to others to refute it. If good evidence to the contary were to be presented, he would have to decide how to proceed. And we, the American public, get to be judges as to the credibility of the two sides.
Further, I believe that the administration has already succumbed to the public pressure, and is beginning to try and sell both the public and the allies. The war rhetoric has certainly calmed down recently. And some of the case is being put forward. I think they have been reading some of the same opinion polls I have.
And if he says, “We have good reasons to attack and invade, we can’t tell you, but trust me”, we have even less to go on.
I’m not arguing that he has to legally (and take no position on that), but that he has to politically. Any thing else is a recipe for disaster.
Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said today that if the US attacks unilaterally that would break the coalition against terrorism (meaning Russia is out) because the US would be using the interntional coalition for its own ends. China has said pretty much the same.
My opinion is that if the US attacks without a UN mandate and broad international support it is going to lose a lot of influence in Asia for the benefit of China and Russia who will gain.
Question- Is Saddam outright dumb and tactless enough to nuke an ally of the US, or even the US? The only scenario I can imagine in which he’d do this, excluding defense, is if he had a terminal illness or were suicidal. We have no reason to believe either.
And never mind that the US cannot possibly launch a ground assault on Iraq without the support and assistance of nations like Saudi Arabia that have already told Dubya to get stuffed. Barring something totally unforeseen, there will be no full-scale war on Iraq. Period.