Post-Powell's Address: "Smoking Gun" Redux

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by tagos *
**Weaker, and Cuba had as much right to host whatever weapons they liked, just as Turkey was hosting US nukes on the borders of the USSR at the time, so the comparison is irrelevant. **

Weaker? All Stevenson showed were photographs taken by U2 overflights. Powell had similar photographs plus other intelligence intercepts. (Or are you saying the Cuban evidence was weaker? It’s unclear.)

And the comparison is apt, if not perfect. The Cuban photos had to justify a naval blockade, by any definition an act of war. Powell’s evidence is ultimately going to be used to justify military action.

PS, I’m pretty glad we didn’t sit idly by while Cuba exercised its “right” to park nuclear armaggedon ninety miles off the coast of Florida.

[elucidator]

When lies and hypocrisies lie thick upon the ground, it is difficult to choose where to begin.

UN resolutions. The US is feverishly concerned that the UN shall become “irrelevant”. Heaven forfend! Why, all Security Coucil resolutions must be sternly and forthrightly enforced. Unless, of course, they are misguided, as in the case of Security Council resolutions as regards Isreal. That’s different. Israel has no WMD’s, if you are willing to overlook nuclear weapons. And we are.

So it would appear that our demands that the UN have spine, etc., means only that the UN has the backbone and grit to comply with our wishes.

And what of Russia? What of the Chechnyans? Very different indeed, Putin doesn’t gas his own people, collateral damage is conducted by the acceptable methods of bullet and shrapnel. Dead Chechnyans are no doubt much gratified that their demise is through organic means, and not disreputable means such as gases. Yes, that must be a great comfort.

And Saddam bin Ladens terrifying threat to our shores? Imagine if you will Uncle Sam, hunkering in his bunker surrounded by the instruments of peace: automatic weapons, hand grenades, hydrogen bombs, bristling with armament. Through our binoculars, we observe that Saddam is tinkering with constructing a bow and arrow! He might one day move on to flintlocks! Intolerable threat. What if we happen to need to saunter over and slap his silly ass around! He could resist! Unacceptable.

And he might threaten his neighbors, who even as we speak, are clamoring for us to rush to their protection. Syria, Saudi, Jordan…each and every one are beseeching us to rush to thier defence. Well, perhaps not exactly. Bit shy of that, actually.

But what of the threat from Al Queda, Saddams pit bull. The evidence of the connection is clear! Well, transparent. Actually, invisible. Same thing to a Leader of Men, who trusts his gut instincts, like all great Leaders of Men. Great leaders don’t trouble themselves with triviality. Witness Mr. Woodwards book, Bush at War. He quotes Mr. Bush telling his aides on Sept. 17th, 2001, “I believe Iraq was involved. I’m not going to strike them now, I don’t have the evidence at this point”. Nor has he now. Not that it matters.

I do wish he had read more Barbara Tuchman, and a bit less People.

(Note: I do not pretend to have read Mr. Woodward’s book, kneepad journalism is not for me. My quote is lifted from Anthony Lewis’ review of same in the New York Review of Books. I presume it is accurate.)

[Shodan]

Something else that has been true all along is that Saddam has been effectively contained, and not an imminent threat to anyone outside of his own zone of control in central Iraq.

So you define possessing enough chemwar munitions for 16,000 shells, bio-warfare development capabilities, mobile anthrax plants, Scud missiles, firing on US planes, attempting assassinations of former US Presidents, arming and training terrorists, and making huge efforts to acquire nukes, as “being effectively contained”? Just like the 1994 treaty “effectively contained” the North Korean nuclear weapons program. Should we do nothing about them, either? No “direct threat” from them until after they develop ICBMs - then we can act.

Hitler ignores treaties and begins to re-arm. No “direct threat” there - US should do nothing.

Hitler annexes the Sudetenland - No “direct threat” there - US should do nothing.

Hitler takes over Czechoslovakia - No “direct threat” there - US should do nothing.

Hitler invades Poland - No “direct threat” there - US should do nothing.

Hitler conquers France - No “direct threat” there - US should do nothing.

Hitler attacks Great Britain - No “direct threat” there - US should do nothing.

All these arguments that Iraq doesn’t pose a direct threat to the US boil down to arguments that we should wait until it is too late to do anything.

I suspect several earlier posters were correct - we could publish an authenticated picture of Saddam Hussein pointing to an ICBM full of plutonium, and some people would say “There’s no indication that he is going to aim it at the US - let’s let the inspectors do their work.”

Another indication, I suppose, that the far left in the US is becoming increasingly marginalized. Thank God.

Regards,
Shodan

[ChaosGod]

*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly *
**
And what would Iraq do with those weapons if we just left poor Saddam alone? Ask yourself: why does Saddam want to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even at the expense of isolating his regime and living under sanctions? **

OTOH, why does the US mantain its vast nuclear arsenal? For deterrence, one hopes.
Does anybody doubt that the US has researched every conceivable mass destruction weapon that man can imagine?

[Spavined_Gelding]

*Originally posted by Beagle *
**This is an unfair standard. It dismisses the whole inspections with “serious consequences” for non-complinace that we are discussing here.

“Clearly and presently endangers”

This is not the issue in the whole Iraqi dog-and-pony shell game we have been playing for 12 years. “Smoking gun” is not the same thing as “brandishing a loaded gun.” I think “clearly and presently endangers” goes way beyond anything I have to prove.

But, Iraq is not going to cooperate and the troops are deploying. **

I take it from this that Iraq presents no clear and present danger to a vital US national interest. If there is indeed no clear and present danger are we on the road to war because there is a murky and remote threat to the vital national interest? Do we commit the US to this course based on speculation about what Saddam might do in the future–screw with Arabian oil, give nerve gas to Osama, drop the bomb on Israel or any other of any number of things he might conceivably do but has shown no inclination to do and appears to lack the ability to do?

In the meantime, we have the specter of North Korea making pretty blatant threats to launch a preemptive attack on the US and its clients to forestall the possibility that the US will take out its nuke facilities. Now there, to my thinking, is a clear and present danger since NK is obviously capable of now carrying out that threat by a conventional attack on South Korea and Japan.

As far as the UN and its credibility is concerned, shouldn’t the UN decide whether its will has been thwarted by Saddam? Maybe the UN cannot enforce its will but it seems a little strange that the present administration should assume the mantel of defender of the honor of the UN.

[Koxinga]

*Originally posted by ChaosGod *
**OTOH, why does the US mantain its vast nuclear arsenal? For deterrence, one hopes.
Does anybody doubt that the US has researched every conceivable mass destruction weapon that man can imagine? **

What does this have to do with Saddam actively using his WMDs to deter his own citizens from breathing? You guys are gyrating ever more desperately to distract the audience from the main point. Any moment now, I expect you to don funny hats and baggy clown pants and start dancing the macarena–anything to draw attention away from the fact that you were wrong.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**UN resolutions. The US is feverishly concerned that the UN shall become “irrelevant”. Heaven forfend! Why, all Security Coucil resolutions must be sternly and forthrightly enforced. Unless, of course, they are misguided, as in the case of Security Council resolutions as regards Isreal. That’s different. Israel has no WMD’s, if you are willing to overlook nuclear weapons. And we are. **

Please do tell what Security Council resolutions Israel has violated. A Security Council resolution carries a wee bit more weight than one from the floor of the General Assembly (where any two-bit backwater junta can get a resolution passed). Israel may have violated the latter, but AFAIK it hasn’t violated the former.

[Koxinga]

*Originally posted by Spavined Gelding *
In the meantime, we have the specter of North Korea making pretty blatant threats to launch a preemptive attack on the US and its clients to forestall the possibility that the US will take out its nuke facilities. Now there, to my thinking, is a clear and present danger since NK is obviously capable of now carrying out that threat by a conventional attack on South Korea and Japan.

I’m sure that Harry Turtledove could pen a convincing alternate history of the years 2001-2003, wherein the US is poised to attack North Korea and whiny voices arise from the rear: “you shouldn’t do anything about Pyongyang until you clear up the mess in Baghdad!” (insert sniveling smilie here)

In other words, you all don’t give a wet fart about Korea, you just want to seize any handy and intellectually dishonest excuse you can to whine about the US taking any sort of action.

[Squink]

Shodan goes apocryphal
Hitler ignores treaties and begins to re-arm. No “direct threat” there - US should do nothing.

Hitler annexes the Sudetenland - No “direct threat” there - US should do nothing.

Hitler takes over Czechoslovakia - No “direct threat” there - US should do nothing.

Hitler invades Poland - No “direct threat” there - US should do nothing.

Hitler conquers France - No “direct threat” there - US should do nothing.

Hitler attacks Great Britain - No “direct threat” there - US should do nothing.

Just who is it you’re accusing here ? Wasn’t it us liberals who dragged you isolationist consie bastards kicking and screaming to the defense of Europe ? It’s still pretty common to hear rightwingers claim that FDR dragged us into WWII just to cover up the failings of his new deal. That doesn’t sound like the argument of anyone who supported the action.

[ChaosGod]

*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly *
**What does this have to do with Saddam actively using his WMDs to deter his own citizens from breathing? **

And this is the reason the US wants to carpet bomb the country ?

[december]

*Originally posted by Squink *
**Wasn’t it us liberals who dragged you isolationist consie bastards kicking and screaming to the defense of Europe ? **

Yes it was. Conservatives were wrong, and learned from their mistake. Liberals were right, yet some of them have unlearned what they once knew.

[In_Conceivable]

*Originally posted by ChaosGod *
**And this is the reason the US wants to carpet bomb the country ? **

The US doesn’t plan to carpet bomb the country.

[Koxinga]

*Originally posted by ChaosGod *
**And this is the reason the US wants to carpet bomb the country ? **

No, this is the reason that your attempt to draw moral equivalence between Iraq and the United States is delusional.

BTW, I’d be interested to know what you think the term “carpet bomb” means, and show me where you get the idea that this is what the US intends to do in Iraq.

[Beagle]

I would not be surprised if we used unguided gravity bombs on Republican Guard units stationed in the open. I can live with that. I already posted a link to our plan to drop over 75 percent guided bombs. No nation has invested more time or money in developing and deploying precision bombs.

[Boo]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**And Saddam bin Ladens terrifying threat to our shores? Imagine if you will Uncle Sam, hunkering in his bunker surrounded by the instruments of peace: automatic weapons, hand grenades, hydrogen bombs, bristling with armament. Through our binoculars, we observe that Saddam is tinkering with constructing a bow and arrow! He might one day move on to flintlocks! Intolerable threat. What if we happen to need to saunter over and slap his silly ass around! He could resist! Unacceptable.

**

I don’t know, maybe he’ll just help some terrorist group hijack some planes and fly them into buildings…maybe he’ll give them a litte nerve gas and teach them how to use it…maybe even help them smuggle it into the US…maybe he’ll teach them how to contaninaite a water supply with smallpox.

[mack]

*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly *
Again, and again, and again, I see this fundamental (and probably deliberate) misunderstanding of what it is that inspectors actually do. They don’t “destroy” jack shit

You’re wrong:

Iraq is bound by a 1991 U.N. agreement ending the Persian Gulf War to permit unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. The inspectors destroyed massive quantities of Iraqi weapons before they were withdrawn from the country in 1998.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2002/0226unpress.htm

But Iraq’s unconventional weapons programs were thought to have been largely destroyed during the Gulf war bombing campaign and UNSCOM–responsible for destroying Iraq’s chemical, biological, and missile programs–and the IAEA–responsible for Iraq’s nuclear program–were slowly mopping up what remained.

http://www.meib.org/articles/0007_me1.htm

International inspectors were sent in after the Gulf war to destroy Iraq’s weapons programmes. By 1998, the IAEA had destroyed facilities and removed from Iraq weapons -grade nuclear material.

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/press/0709nuc.htm

(bolding mine)

[ChaosGod]

*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly *
**No, this is the reason that your attempt to draw moral equivalence between Iraq and the United States is delusional.
**

Saddam is a ruthless megalomaniac. North Korea is a human rights disaster. But, the world is aprehensive of a superpower that regularly uses its military might explicitly to achieve its goals. Does the US want to go into Iraq because of its human rights issues? I don’t think so. Its a question of oil. The US doesn’t mind dictators at all, as long as they are friendly to US interests. I’m sure the american people want their government to do the right thing, but foreign policy has been so dubious for so long, that sometimes it looks like the US goverment has grown tired of going through the moves of finding excuses to give to the american public whenever they pursue material interests through military means.

[Koxinga]

*Originally posted by mack *
**You’re wrong:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2002/0226unpress.htm

http://www.meib.org/articles/0007_me1.htm
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/press/0709nuc.htm

(bolding mine) **

I can’t access the second link, but based on the others it looks as if you’re citing as fact the somewhat sloppy journalistic shorthand used by the reporters writing for the Washington Post and the Financial Times.

In contrast, I take Condoleezza Rice’s description of their job as a bit more authoritative:

In 1989 South Africa made the strategic decision to dismantle its covert nuclear weapons program. It destroyed its arsenal of seven weapons and later submitted to rigorous verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Inspectors were given complete access to all nuclear facilities (operating and defunct) and the people who worked there. They were also presented with thousands of documents detailing, for example, the daily operation of uranium enrichment facilities as well as the construction and dismantling of specific weapons.

[Beagle]

I’m aware of the situation in North Korea. I even have an ongoing thread here.

You seem to mistake me for someone who wants to debate overall US foreign policy on this thread. I want to debate the smoking gun issue that recently got a major injection of new material for debate from Colin Powell. But, I refer you to the section of my post you left out of the quote:

Notice, I’m not saying we should invade tomorrow. I hesitate to guess when we might invade. In fact, I’m considering how much longer we should give the inspectors. I am interested in seeing how the whole Powell address will change the process, and Iraq is not going anywhere. Given the possibilities in a war like this, it is hard not to have some serious concerns about the worst case scenarios.

But, Iraq is not going to cooperate and the troops are deploying.

[capacitor]

How about that Iraq was the only country whose leader went “Ha ha!” after 9-11. He should get a smack just for that.