And Saddam Hussein does?
Strike that last post of mine. Nothing Ace said implied that Hussein deserves the benefit of the doubt, so it was nothing but pure snarkiness on my part. Although I do think it’s worth saying that Hussein does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I see. So French oil and gas agreements with Iran and Iraq have NOTHING to do with their policy of appeasement? Right. It’s an ethical, judicial problem. winkwinknudgenudge Europeans would NEVER make policy based on economics.
But those filthy Americans. Why, all their policy is based on their economy and oil interests.
Give me a break.
So when does a country have the right to depose a foreign government? When does a group of nations (UN) have the right to depose a foreign government? The answer is whenever they see fit and find it in their interests to do so (provided they have the power to do it).
Ah, now I see why the US doesn’t want an international warcrimes institution. Going back to your reference to Germany in the 30’s, I see the connection.
Wasn’t one of the the main charges against the Nazi’s at Nurnberg ‘starting a war of agression’? People got hung for that one.
The US want’s to retain the right to start wars whenever they see fit and finds it in their interest (which is whenever a new president comes to power). So all this moralisation about freedom, democracy and independence, that has been pouring out of the US for God knows how long, was just propaganda.
Thanks for clearing that up.
We’ll start taking our colonies back now. if you don’t mind.
Well, I was actually referring to the European notion that wars of agression are OK as long as enough people (ie, Europeans) agree on it. Most of the noise coming out of that side of the world seems to be that the US can attack Iraq as long as it is sympathetic to its allies (ie, Europeans) concerns.
So I find it kind of funny when you think that the US going it alone would be a war of agression…but if Europe decides its OK, it’s suddenly not.
That is, of course, not what I am saying.
If Europe joins, they probably will, it is still a war of agression.
Now, if there was clear evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack or did something like invade Kuwait again, then there would be a valid reason for a war.
We all knew when Emperor Bush II was ‘elected’ that there would be a war with Iraq, just to rectify Bush I’s failure to finish the job. The war on terrorism is just clouding this issue and gives Bush some straws to clutch at for justifying his private crusade.
A-men, Ma’m. Yuse just go right along and tell it like it is !
Sua - Eye’s comin’ back fer you sommtime later (over the weekend) - don’t go away, ya hear !..just a crazy day, here.
See, what’d I tell you, LC? It’s Thursday, September 12, we got ourselves over the “Septemberrrrrr-theeeee-elevennnnnth-[sound-effect-of-great-bell-tolling-BONNNGGG…]” hump, and George has abruptly quit beating the big bad “We’re a-comin’ for ya, Saddam!” war drums and has dumped the whole thing back in the UN’s lap. “And we really mean it this time, too!” :rolleyes: Or as he put it in the speech, "“The purposes of the United States should not be doubted.” Yeah, you tell 'em, George.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/bush.speech.un/index.html
Transcript of speech, and most pertinent part.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/bush.transcript/
See, you got all hot and bothered for nothin’, babe. 
He’s handed the hot potato back to the UN, and watch what happens next.
Nothing. That’s what. Oh, maybe a resolution or two, but a war? Naaahhh…
Just to focus on the big B Bomb.
Now lets just say the fissile material problem is disposed of somehow. The Nuke Fairy leaves a couple hundred kilos under his pillow. What next?
Has he got people with adequate technical competence to build an honest to goodness Hiroshima style nuke? Without making a large glowing hole in the Godforsaken Desert? Likely, hell, who doesn’t? Upper Volta, Gabon, about it.
So, anyway, say the Brain Squad puts together a workable design, got the fissible bang-stuff, bad a boom, bad a bing, Bob’s your uncle, he’s got one, ten, a dozen working nukes.
Probably. Ah, theres the rub.
He can’t test them! There is zero chance he can test even a Little Boy without everybody, and I mean everybody knowing it.
Now consider the strategic complications inherent in relying on a weapon that you can’t be sure will work. An A-bomb is no M-80, it is a very complicated piece of design even in its crudest form. Murphy’s Law applys with rigor in physics in general.
Without being tested, they are useless. What could possibly be more self-destructive that a nuke that doesn’t work? It would be like sneaking up behind the baddest mofo on the planet, to club him in the head while he ain’t looking, and at the last second discover your holding a wiffle ball bat. Fatal error. Adios, muchacho.
And a different tangent: I suffer from pessimism. I think Our Leader will get his war. As far as the Security Council goes, the fix is in. Tony the Poodle Boy is already on board, France, China and Russia can be bought. An abstention, at the very least, motion carries, cry havoc.
Failing that, there will be an incident. A torpedo, a gunboat, a missing pilot perhaps, yes, thats the ticket, a missing Hero who might very well have been captured and who conceivably may be being personally tortured by S. Hussein himself…
Easiest thing in the world.
Once they get the drums pounding, we Americans will loyally sit down and shut up, gotta support our boys. Works every time, has never failed. Hell, we were solidly in support of the invasion of Grenada, for crying in the beer!
Like kittens in baskets, war mush always works. We fall for it every single time.
And, oh, London? I’ll make a deal with you. You never, ever again reprise your “redneck” accent, and I’ll never again remind you how you guys used to be Great Britain.
Israel also never tested her nukes, and I don’t think it bothers them much.
We have not tested our latest generation of nukes.
France, Great Britian, Russia, and PRC have also not tested their latest generation of nukes.
Why? Because they are fairly simple devices, once the science is out of the way (which it is, in a big way). All thats left is engineering.
Testing is only neccessary if you are trying out some fancy new firing device or some new blend of boom! materiel. I suppose if you are India or Pakistan, testing gives you some brownie points at home, but little else.
No, the above mentioned do not test thier nukes. They tested the hundred or so nukes before they built these. They/we already know they work. Why bother?
India and Pakistan test precisely because they are haunted by the ghost of Murphy. Wouldn’t you?
How would you like to be the guy who tells Saddam for sure, it will go bang. No question, don’t have to test it, trust me. After all, “all thats left is engineering!”
The assumption here is that Saddam Hussein wouldn’t want to test a nuclear weapon. But a nuclear weapon isn’t really a military asset, it’s a political one. If Iraq secretly develops weapons, and then uses them during, say, a U.S. invasion, to obliterate Tel Aviv or Riyadh or an American armored division, it would be a pretty Pyrrhic victory. If the U.S. at that point was not already hellbent on putting Saddam Hussein’s head on a pike in front of the gates of Baghdad (so to speak), we sure as hell would be afterwards. No matter how much fissile material it gets, even Saddam Hussein can’t believe Iraq could develop a nuclear arsenal sufficient to win an all-out nuclear war with the United States–and even superpowers don’t “win” nuclear wars.
The more likely scenario would be that Iraq would test a nuclear weapon at the earliest opportunity, precisely because such a test would be impossible to hide. Saddam Hussein then lets the world know he has several more such devices ready to go–and now let the world try invading Iraq.
This would of course be nuclear brinksmanship of a very high order. He would be risking a possible nuclear pre-emptive strike from not just the United States but also Israel. And the argument could be made that even if we knew Iraq had nuclear weapons, we could still deter it using the classic “massive retaliation” threat–that we would use nuclear weapons not only in response to a nuclear attack by Iraq, but in response to a conventional invasion of any of its neighbors as well.
But I don’t think the argument that Saddam Hussein has no use for nuclear weapons because he can’t test them will hold water.
Israel has never tested a nuke, to the best of my knowledge.
The nuke is worse than useless. He cannot use it in offense, because he hasn’t the delivery systems for long range. No matter what move he makes, the US can render Iraq into one giant chunk of green glass any time it likes.
He cant use it defensively because he cannot disable the US force.
And if the world knows he has a nuke, all bets are off, everybody onboard the Coalition Train. No problem, on to Baghdad.
He tests it, he’s dead, the US and most of his neighbors would suddenly find a happy convergence of views.
He uses it, he’s dead, because no conceivable attack he can make would disable American counter strike potential.
Why even build it?
Well, bear in mind that, while Saddam Hussein is not just a crazed madman–he has a quite well-developed sense of self-preservation, and a real talent at it, too–he has made some pretty grave errors of judgement.
What was the point of invading Iran in 1980? It didn’t get Iraq undivided control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway or control of any other disputed territory or allow Iraq to seize Khuzestan (the oil rich, mainly Arab province of Iran adjacent to Iraq). It didn’t allow Iraq to install a friendly government in any part of Iran, or to topple the Islamist regime in Tehran. It got Iraq into a bloody war and got a lot of Iraqis (and Iranians) killed.
What was the point of invading Kuwait in 1990? Iraq’s annexation of the country didn’t stand; Iraq didn’t get any territorial concessions, the Iraqi army got badly mauled, the Iraqi air force was destroyed, Iraq was and is subjected to severe economic sanctions, and Saddam Hussein lost control over parts of his country–and most of his country’s airspace–which he still hasn’t regained. And what was the further point of hanging tough in the face of an oncoming full-force mechanized invasion by the most technologically advanced military force on Earth? (What if the Iraq had withdrawn most of its forces from Kuwait, and left behind a small force in support of a nominally independent government?)
Finally, although he did manage to basically get away with it, I’d say launching ballistic missiles at Israel wasn’t the most circumspect foreign policy move ever made either.
You may realize Iraq pursuing nuclear weapons is suicidal, and I may realize Iraq pursuing nuclear weapons is suicidal, the question is, does Saddam Hussein realize it?
Well, short of bringing Miss Cleo in as National Security Adviser…
Actually if he had it and tested, the nuke that is, that game would change considerably. A nuclear exchange in the region will cause contamination of a wide area, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, and Israel would be affected by the fallout.
There’s no point in trying to claim that Saddam Hussein does not want nuclear weapons. He clearly does. He wants them so badly he has chosen to suffer hundreds of billions of dollars of economic damage through sanctions rather than give up his WMD programs.
Saddam wants to create a new Caliphate in the Middle East with Baghdad at its center. He sees himself as the natural true leader of the Arab world. He’s also a posturing blowhard and a megalomaniac.
He’s exactly the type of lunatic who might convince himself that if he nuked Tel Aviv and threatened other European countries in order to keep them away, Arabs throughout the Middle East would leap to embrace him as their natural leader. With their enthusiastic welcome, he would invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and use the enormous clout of the combined oil fields plus the threat of his nuclear weapons to raise the stature of the Arab world. Once they have the power, they will have the ability to stand toe-to-toe with the west and assume a position of power and honor in the world!
Why do you think Saddam is paying suicide bombers? It’s PR. He wants to be loved through the Arab world. Uncle Saddam. He wants to be loved so badly that he forces his entire country to wear a smile at gunpoint. Every home and shop is littered with portraits of Saddam, because the secret police is everywhere. Smile, damn you. Saddam is your glorious leader.
Not that I think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of Saddam’s plans working out, but that’s the kind of raving vision that madmen take to their graves - along with a lot of innocent people.
Well, the point is, you can argue that the sanctions have successfully prevented Iraq from obtaining what it needs to build nuclear weapons, or that the best way to stymie Iraq’s plans is to continue with sanctions and a resumption of UN weapons inspections,opr even that Iraqi possession of nuclear weapons would best be handled by containment and deterrance, and so on and so forth. I just don’t think it makes much sense to base policy on counting on Saddam Hussein to come to the same conclusions as we do as to what is and isn’t a good idea for Iraq, foreign policy-wise.
The way I interpret the speech, is that it is mereley a change of tactics in selling his private little war.
He played the Al Qaeda card; no proof whatsoever, no mandate.
He played the WOMD card, again not enough for a mandate from UN.
Now he is saying he is only enforcing UN resolutions.
IOW he is doing the UN’s job and they should give him a mandate for that.
The ball is not back with the UN, Bush will go ahead regardless of any UN decisions.
The build-up of forces continues.