Gee, Shodan, I think you’ve overlooked something. Yes, indeed, I think you have. Can’t be deliberate, straightforward, honest guy like yourself. I’ll just gently nudge you along. Remember previously, when you accused me of spreading lies and bullshit about Saddam bin Laden (yes, its quite deliberate…dont much give a rats ass if you like it or not) confering with the US prior to the Kuwait invasion.?
Well, gosh, it seems that the guy who was full of it was you. Not that this lowers you in my esteem. Its just a few posts up, sorry you missed it. I’ll remind if you if it escapes you again. Got cites and everything! See that blue bar on the right, with the little arrows? Just a little bit up, got my name on it
Does the government have the right to keep you from owning a gun based on what you might do, if you have a prior history of committing violent crimes? Sure they do. And if they tell you to get rid of the gun, and you don’t, what do they do? Arrest you, forcefully if need be. Of course, Saddam can’t just be arrested - he needs to be forcefully removed from power.
Do I see where that leads to? Yes. Increased US security, and maybe a shot at democracy in the Middle East.
MAD works great when you have rational actors on the world stage. Stalin was an evil man, but he wasn’t crazy, and he could be reasoned with. Saddam cannot. We’ve tried reason. What do you think the last year has amounted to? “Give up the weapons, or we will kill you.” He tells us, effectively, to get bent. How would you suggest we reason with him? And you’re missing the point - it’s not that Saddam is going to try to invade the US, it’s that he’s going to try to invade Saudi Arabia, eg. Shall we give the Saudis some nukes, so that MAD can work its wonders?
As for giving the UN more power, it needs to claim power on its own. It’s the UN that is deciding that its own resolutions don’t need to be abided by. To quote Uncle Ben, with great power comes great responsibility. The UN has to be willing to accept that responsibility for its power to mean anything.
Oh, and the idea of a “world government” sends chills of dread down my spine, I might add.
Yes, immediately after 9/11, the World Community ™ got together and offered up a big, giant “Dude, that sucks.” They expressed solidarity, and it was great. We expressed our intent to go into Afghanistan, and while there support by the governments, there was a metric ass-load of waffling by many of the citizens of those countries. That reluctance stemmed, in part, from an instinct of self-preservation. While the reluctance was minor during Afghanistan, it would be enormous if Saddam could credibly threaten the world at large.
Pakistan and India are rational, and both have nukes. Saddam is not rational, and any nation he would be inclined to attack would not have nukes.
And I’ll pass on addressing the rest of your post, which amounts to a giggling fit. If you’d like to discuss specific points, let me know. Otherwise, I’ll assume you shot your proverbial wad on the blather I responded to.
Jeff
I didn’t say this either. Bush made the best of what he had. Bush claimed that his father did not cash in on his “political capital” after the success of the Gulf War. I believe that Bush Jr. did use his political capital. He declared war on Iraq as soon as he could after 9/11. Think about it. He was already calling them part of the “axis of evil” in the first State of the Union after 9/11, a total of five months later. He sure didn’t waste much time now did he? Especially considering that there was no way to connect 9/11 and Iraq.
You can’t honestly believe that Americans gave two hoots about terrorism before 9/11. Therefore the entire proposition that terrorism was one of the reasons that Bush was elected is false on the premise alone. I don’t ever recall Bush mentioning Iraq or inspections even in passing during the 2000 presidential campaign. I can’t find anything on the net either.
Yeah what ever happened to this war? Shouldn’t we finish this one first, and perhaps get OBL before we move on to Saddam?
Yeah and what ever happed to this? I got a letter in the mail (because I’m a member of American Society of Microbiologist) and it seems pretty clear that this was domestic. Aren’t you concerned that someone out there has weaponized anthrax, and is willing to use it, and has in fact, used it! And we don’t know who this is or where they are. Shouldn’t we complete this before moving on to Saddam?
Too bad you can’t connect the two. And in fact, there is no connection between the two. The strain that was used in the domestic attacks is not the same strain that was sold to Saddam. (Like I said, I know this stuff, I got the letter).
Then it sure is funny how the Bush administration is using the Clinton administration personnel to cool down the North Korea situation. Bush is saying that, although he reserves the right to go into Korea, that he won’t. How is this so different than the Clinton administration policy (BTW Clinton is not the devil incarnate and I felt a whole lot safer under his administration than I do now)
Another Clinton slam claiming “wag the dog” I got already.
Gratuitous Clinton slam…again.
Or Bush had no intention of allowing anything but regime change from the get go. Why is that so unthinkable?
Where are you getting this stuff? Is there a reason that you can’t argue this on the facts alone and must gratuitously drag Clinton (two years out of office) and blowjobs into it?
How about Bush would like a “New American Century” in line with the published opinions of most of his defense department staff. He believes that democracy in the Middle East is a goal worth sending troops for. He find the opportunity to plant the seeds when his political capital is high after 9/11, and it has now come to fruition. Why so confused?
If you are still confused as to Bush’s foreign policy goals are please peruse the The Project for the New American Century web site. Their opinions can almost be found verbatim in Bush’s policy speeches. This is their stated goal
Say, where is ol’ Shodan anyway. Got something I want to show him. Don’t tell me the boy can dish it out but he can’t take it? Nah, that can’t be it. (chuckle)
While this seems to be winding down to a merciful conclusion there are a couple points that need to be made.
Tough talk always gets us into trouble. Sooner or later we have to put up or shut up and shutting up comes none to easy. Some surely remembers Lyndon Johnson’s comment about, as I recall it, nailing Uncle Ho’s hide to the barn door, General LeMay and bombing North Vietnam back into the Stone Age, Captain Fetterman’s brag that with 50 men he could ride through the whole Sioux nation? Teddy’s admonition was to speak softly and carry a big stick. Sooner or later, the easy way or the hard way, this country will have to learn that its position as THE great power requires it to adopt an attitude of modest confidence in its own power. Europe regards us as a pack of loud mouthed, reckless cowboys, not because of what the country has done but because of the way the bunch in charge for the last two years talks and postures.
The U-2 photos of Cuba may well have shown long tents and long boxes but the photos were unambiguous. Nobody, not even the Soviets, questioned the assertion that they showed the process of setting up ballistic missiles. Maybe the Powell photos are likewise unambiguous, maybe the square building is used for chemical bio agent manufacture, maybe the truck along side the building is a decontamination station. But maybe not.
In the end it doesn’t make any difference. Our leadership has big talked us into a commitment to remove Saddam by force of arms. I seen no need to have done this but it is done and there is precious little anyone can do about it except allow the events to sweep us on. The weather compels us to act now, or within the next 10 to 20 days or wait until November. Pray God that we get it over with quickly and cleanly and that the aftermath doesn’t reflect too much discredit on the nation.
This is pretty typical. I cannot remember any candidate mentioning specific foreign policy objectives while campaigning. I was 9 when the Vietnam War ended.
He gave Saddam an out, cooperation with the inspectors. Bush knew, of course, that being a brutal dictator requires NBC weapons in the modern world. Saddam was bound to not cooperate and try to play the French and Germans, etc, off against us. Saddam outwaited Bush I and Clinton, he thinks Bush II might be gone in a couple years.
This isn’t about him having a gun. It’s been the goal of you royal clique to dispose of Saddam from the very start, witness those letters. They are just clutching at justifications, and painfully obvious it is too.
We still, after all this time, haven’t seen any evidence for links with El Qaeda or that they were close to having a nuke. You do remember those justifications, right?
Well did we see any of this at Powell’s show, THE moment to show it all, to convince the doubters?
You may have some sort of blind trust in your leaders, I don’t.
We are being lied to, I feel it in every bone, and they have shown us nothing to take away that doubt.
No, it will lead to more and more people being pissed off with the US, giving you more and more targets to keep your eyes on.
Stalin wasn’t crazy, Hitler wasn’t crazy, Napoleon wasn’t crazy and neither is Saddam crazy. Making him out to be so is the usual hysterics build-up about the enemy.
He doesn’t want to conquer the world and laugh maniacally, while playing the organ. This isn’t Hollywood.
(I agree that he may still have his eyes on Kuwait though.)
But, strangely, this crazy, totaly unreliable mad man hasn’t done anything for over the, what?, 12 years now. Why not???
Simple, he isn’t crazy.
Huh?
You mean us little countries should take the power from you and the other veto holders?? Then we will have justified our existence to you?
I must be missing something here.
Now, that is interesting. Why would you dread such a thing?
Given that states would remain sovereign. You just wouldn’t be allowed to go to war over any… Oh ah I see your dread.
Republican presidents would have no means left to assert themselves.
BS
May I remind you that while you are going to enjoy yourselves in Iraq. The Germans and the Dutch are going to oversee Afghanistan? And the country is already slipping back into tribal warfare, very rapidly. The puppet king only rules Kabul.
India isn’t all that rational, Pakistan certainly isn’t.
But this MAD thing does seem to be working. Though the situation is very scary.
Yeah, shot the wad and the ramrod with it.
Sorry, but you were rambling on a bit.
light strand, if you’re a micro-biologist, you must be smart and analytical. However, you have failed to distinguish between certainty and risk.
I agree that there was no way to definitely connect Saddam and al Qaeda at that time. However, there was every reason to be highly concerned (or even petrified) about the risk that Iraq might supply al Qaeda with WMDs. If Saddam ever gave al Qaeda a nuclear device or other WMD, they would likely use it on an American city.
No, because they’re the same war. We now know that Iraq is supporting al Quaeda (in addition to various Palestinian terrorists) because Colin Powell said so in his UN presentation.
The Clinton policy was a fake. It allowed North Korea to cheat – to continue to develop nukes.
The current crisis began when the Bush administration called NK on their cheating. So far, Bush’s policy is more reality-based. Will it work? I don’t know. Time will tell if Bush can do better than Clinton and Carter. I am wishing for an agreement where we pay off NK, but we get a truly verifiable commitment to eschew nukes. That may be too much to hope for.
The proof that Sadaam is not only concealing WMD, but conspiring to conceal them is overwhelming. Sure, all the UN found was a few technical violations, which could be explained as either: 1. He’s hiding shit, or 2. They forgot about some old shit. Yes, they were violations, but, maybe Sadaam had really mostly disarmed his WMD.
But now we have solid evidence he has continued his programs- and what is worse, embarked on a program designed to conceal these WMD from the UN & us.
Sure- it doesn’t appear he has actually made a nuke yet. But he hasn’t given up the idea, either.
And, yes- the links between the terrorists he does support and the Al Queda are tenuous. Maybe they have little in common other that hating Isreal & the USA. So? Dudes- there are other terrorists besides the Al quada & Osama, you know.
If you don’t beleive Saddam is disobeying the UN, and conspiring to conceal his criminal actions, then you are one of 3: 1. A conspiracy looney. 2. Have set the standard of proof so high that nothing will convince you. or 3. Think that nothing justifies war.
However- that being said- this does not nessesarily justify a full out invasion of Iraq, either. There is something to be said for other alternatives. But- just talking ain’t gonna cut it.
What would I do? 1. Give SH an ultimatum, and a deadline. 2. When he blows it off with more lies & concealments, then send in a limited airstrike against those WMD targets we know about. 3. Knock out his airpower entirely. Anything that shoots back is blasted off the face of this earth. 4. Disrupt communications & radar. 5. Send in a few elite special forces strike teams to seize some WMD sites and evidence. 6. Send a smart missle in with Saddam’s name on it- if possible. If not, then destroy his communications with everything outside Bagdad, the people will rise up.
Cost will be less. American casualties will be less- maybe under a dozen lives lost. AND- it is a reasonable & measured response to SH’s level of crimes. At this point in time, I think a full out invasion is not.
There is no way to connect OBL and al queda, and just because “Colin said so” is not proof. Everyone admitted that was weakest part of his presentation. If everything he said was true it would still not constitute a connection. Guy gets hurt- guy goesto Iraq for treatment…thus Iraq has connection to guy? I don’t think so. Thus they are not the same war, and you guys know it. So much so, that half of your arguments are “He’s got bad stuff,” and the other half are '“he’s a terrorist”. If he was responsible for 9/11 you and both know that the American pople would have liked him wiped out long ago, but there isn’t enough evidence. Stick to the “he’s got bad stuff” argument. It’s a whole lot less dishonest.
At least Clinton had a policy. What exactly is Bush’s brilliant policy?
If you want background on my argument here: which is essentially that Bush wanted regime change in Iraq before he was even elected, please see my post at the bottom of page three.
That is probably about half the plan anyway. I don’t think we want to engage any more military forces than necessary. They want to concentrate the early attacks on the Republican Guard. I understand that the RG are in control of the B&C weapons anyway. The idea is to hit the elite troops more loyal to Saddam and hopefully have a big surrender party with the rank and file soldiers.
Saddam’s last option to avoid war is to turn over everything in Powell’s speech and drag this out.
So, assuming that terrorists of the radical Islamic persuasion work together sometimes, it is safe to assume by now that Saddam has links to all kinds of terrorists.
Beagle, since I think that was directed at me. I have never claimed that Saddam doesn’t support terrorism. What I have said repeatedly is that there is *no[i/] evidence that he was involved with al-queda, or 9/11.
Latro- yes, I am uneasy about targeting SH with a missle. Dragging his ass in front of a warcrimes tribunal would be far preferable. However, I am realistic, and if all I we can get is his death in a large explosion, I’d settle for it.
Seems that only a few of us are in the middle. Not “anti-war” or “pro-Bush”. Just realizing that Saddam is a dangerous criminal & must be stopped- but with the least amount of force possible.
I saw the Hussein-Glaspie transcript you linked to. IMHO, it’s not credible – the transcript was supplied by Iraq.
BTW, you did not provide a cite for that Journalist 1-April Glaspie banter you posted later.
…
Now, it seems circumstantially certain that Glaspie and Hussein “spoke past” one another on 7/25/90. I don’t believe that Glaspie felt that she specifically communicated to Hussein that the U.S. sanctioned an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. At worst, she was clumsy in dealing with Hussein, leaving too much possible room to interpret her intent.
Even when reading the Iraqi version of the Hussein-Glaspie talks, it looks to me like Hussein pulled a fast one on Glaspie. She probably was thinking “we won’t play favorites in any border negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait”, while Hussein took the liberty of filling in the blanks.
Still in all, Hussein’s should have had more common sense than to roll through another oil-producing nation. If he honestly thought Glaspie’s words specifically sanctioned that invasion, then he is either disingenuous or a fool. Hussein was ultimately responsible for his own actions, not Glaspie and not the U.S.
