Those who oppose war in Iraq are supporting Saddam Hussein.

[december]

*Originally posted by AZCowboy *
It is interesting to me that december harps on nuclear weapons? Why would that be?

A good sig line. Maybe I’ll use it.

[AZCowboy]

Feel free to use it, but only if you respond to the issue presented.

There is zero evidence that Iraq has made any progress developing nuclear weapons since 1441 was passed. Such an assertion couldn’t even pass the straight face test.

Sure, if the international community totally ignores him, he will start that up again. But no one is espousing that we totally ignore him.

Unless you think he can renew his nuclear weapons program undetected with the UN inspectors present and the US spy satellites watching, your argument is a strawman.

[Cervaise]

*Originally posted by december *
Looked at from a POV of realpolitik, that’s the ambiguity of a preventative war. We are not attacking Saddam to punish him for attacking us. We are doing so to prevent him from attacking us and our allies later when he is militarily much stronger. These calculations are less clear than if we had been directly attacked.

You realize, of course, that this is a defense of Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor.

[istara]

Well here ya’ go. I can give you the names of around a dozen people I work with (I won’t for privacy’s sake, but you can email me) who left Baghdad because they loathe, fear and despise Saddam Hussein.

And none of them want war. Regime change yes - war, no.

So are they supporting Saddam?

[december]

*Originally posted by AZCowboy *
Sure, if the international community totally ignores him, he will start that up again. But no one is espousing that we totally ignore him.

No one is espousing it, but if he is left in power, we will eventually ignore him, just as we have in the past. That’s reality.

Unless you think he can renew his nuclear weapons program undetected with the UN inspectors present and the US spy satellites watching, your argument is a strawman.

This subject was covered thoroughly in Kenneth Pollack’s best seller, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. Pollack, who served in Bill Clinton’s National Security Council, published an article in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago laying out the reasons why Saddam’s nuclear threat is so urgent. It must be on the internet, but I haven’t found it. I do recall that it points out that past estimates of Saddam’s nuclear development proved optimistic. Furthermore, Israel’s bombing of his reactor 20 years ago and the 1991 Gulf War were key. If either of those had not occurred, Saddam would have nuclear weapons.

Here are some
[quotes]
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375509283/ref=pm_dp_ln_b_6/102-4263974-1326568?v=glance&s=books&n=4995&vi=reviews) from a review of his book.

Pollack believed for many years that the United States could prevent Saddam from threatening the stability of the Persian Gulf and the world through containment—a combination of sanctions and limited military operations. Here, Pollack explains why containment is no longer effective, and why other policies intended to deter Saddam ultimately pose a greater risk than confronting him now, before he gains possession of nuclear weapons and returns to his stated goal of dominating the Gulf region. “It is often said that war should be employed only in the last resort,” Pollack writes. “I reluctantly believe that in the case of the threat from Iraq, we have come to the last resort.”

Offering a view of the region that has the authority and force of an intelligence report, Pollack outlines what the leaders of neighboring Arab countries are thinking, what is necessary to gain their support for an invasion, how a successful U.S. operation would be mounted, what the likely costs would be, and how Saddam might react. He examines the state of Iraq today—its economy, its armed forces, its political system, the status of its weapons of mass destruction as best we understand them, and the terrifying security apparatus that keeps Saddam in power. Pollack also analyzes the last twenty years of relations between the United States and Iraq to explain how the two countries reached the unhappy standoff that currently prevails.

From a reader review:

Pollack is in a unique position to enlighten us regarding events both inside and outside Iraq, Saddam’s “not so secret” goal to acquire WMD, and the political and economic events that have transpired since 1991 that have made the policy of containment a pipe dream.

Pollack also objectively analyzes the pros and cons of the various strategy options, such as containment, deterrence and regime change. You will fully understand why the current policy of containment is not working and actually solidifies Saddam’s horrifying grip on the Iraqi people. More forcefully, he provides critical insight into the very real potential conseqences of taking no action to stop Saddam. The possiblities are terrifying.

[Terrifel]

*Originally posted by december *
**No one is espousing it, but if he is left in power, we will eventually ignore him, just as we have in the past. That’s reality.

This is so cool! Evidently someone has invented a functioning time machine! Odd that we haven’t read about it in the “Is time travel possible?” threads. Man, it’s a good thing I occasionally drop in on these foreign policy topics. So, in what year are we going to start ignoring Saddam, and who is scheduled to win the World Series that season?

[FIREMAN44]

We live in a wonderful country where we are free to protest, but I am glad that right now, most Iraqis do not have access to TV coverage. To see Americans, Germans and Brits parading their right to free speach, but telling the Iraqis that they do not back a war to free them, to give them that right, is a slap in the face to them. I’m glad for our sake the French did not feel that way some 200 years ago. Reading most of these posts though, I can see that it is more of an anti-Bush argument then an anti-war argument, but that has been building since his approval rating shot up over 60%.

[AZCowboy]

Thanks for the response.

december wrote:
No one is espousing it, but if he is left in power, we will eventually ignore him, just as we have in the past. That’s reality.

Whose reality? :smack: I didn’t realize you had perfect insight into the future. Mind sharing with me next week’s Big Game Lotto numbers, so that I can feel comfortable with this incredible power of yours? (on second preview, I see Terrifel beat me to mocking this silly statement)

I will certainly grant that such speculation by Pollack sells many books, particularly to individuals like yourself. I also notice that he doesn’t use quite so forceful words in predicting the future as you do. But I also observe that recent history (anything since '81) doesn’t support your hypothesis.

For a contrasting expert opinion, consider that of Dr. Hussein Shahristani, once Iraq’s top nuclear scientist, on the 60 Minutes broadcast of Feb 23. Then explain to me why the credentials of Kenneth Pollack exceed those of Shahristani.

CBS does not offer transcripts to 60 minutes for free online (at least that I can find). For a synopsis of his comments, in case you missed it, can be found in this blog and this page (and while I cannot attest to its complete accuracy, from having viewed the show, I can attest that both are generally accurate at summarizing the information presented by 60 Minutes).

To quote the second link:

Shahristani went on to explain that Iraq’s nuclear capability is being exaggerated.

While Shahristani wants to see Saddam deposed, he did not support a pre-emptive US military invasion and occupation.

Please, just please, suggest to me that this man, tortured by Saddam, is working for Saddam’s interests.

If you wish to investigate his background or positions further, please note that his name is also sometimes spelled Hussain Shahristani.

And while waiting to preview, I just found this.

Hussein Shahristani, in an interview by Jana Wendt
WENDT: With that horrendous experience, we now are at a point in the world where it appears that there will be an attack on Iraq. Do you support that attack?

DR SHAHRISTANI: No, I do not support an attack on Iraq. I think it’s utterly unjust for the Iraqi people to put them in one box with the regime of Saddam and call that Iraq, and then direct sanctions against them, or attack them. I think the war should be focused on Saddam’s power base, on his elite republican guards, on his security apparatus, on his party headquarters, presidential palaces, and spare the Iraqi people yet further suffering.

…

WENDT: Finally, let me ask you this — we have seen millions of people marching in the streets, the capital cities of many countries around the world. Our Prime Minister John Howard has been attacked in recent days for claiming that these marches were only giving support to Saddam Hussein. Is he right or is he wrong?

DR SHAHRISTANI: The Iraqi people have suffered under Saddam. They’ve been killed en masse over 30 years now. And for the Iraqi people, there is no option but to see Saddam removed to put an end to their suffering. And for the peace marchers to demand a stop to the war without following it up with practical ways of helping the Iraqi people to get rid of this dictator, and save them from further atrocities by the regime I think they are stopping short of helping the Iraqi people.

WENDT: So, but just quickly, do you think that those peace marchers around the world did give comfort to Saddam Hussein?

DR SHAHRISTANI: They do give comfort to Saddam Hussein. I mean, Saddam Hussein will seize any opportunity to … to further his cause, and his plan. To stay in power and control the Iraqi people, as he has always been doing.
So in a way Saddam will be benefitting from them unless these marches can really turn into a demand to remove Saddam from power in Iraq without using excessive force.

Emphasis added, to preempt your turning this quote to your advantage, at least without overcoming that phrase.

[Angelofthemist68]

*Originally posted by december *
**Looked at legalistically, Saddam did attack our allies, Kuwait and Israel. The US and the UN made war on Saddam in their defence. That war is still going on, because Saddam has not complied with the treaty terms.

Looked at from a POV of realpolitik, that’s the ambiguity of a preventative war. We are not attacking Saddam to punish him for attacking us. We are doing so to prevent him from attacking us and our allies later when he is militarily much stronger. These calculations are less clear than if we had been directly attacked. Yet, the concept is all too real, as WWII showed. **

December,Iam not sure how old You are and if you remember the Gulf War or anything before that,Iam wondering if you knew that the weapons used by Saddam were weapons the US gave to him,in the first place,so If you are going to blame him,you best be prepared to blame Our Government as well. Godspeed,Monica

[december]

*Originally posted by AZCowboy *
**For a contrasting expert opinion, consider that of Dr. Hussein Shahristani, once Iraq’s top nuclear scientist, on the 60 Minutes broadcast of Feb 23. Then explain to me why the credentials of Kenneth Pollack exceed those of Shahristani. **

Because Mr. Pollack was a senior member of Clinton’s foreign policy team and he is a recognized foreign policy expert. Note that much of Mr. Shahristani’s advice concerned the likely success of a new government in Iraq. This is an area outside of his expertise.

Furthermore, he doesn’t directly contradict Pollack’s reasoning. Pollack said in his Times article that, in his judgment, if Saddam wasn’t overthrown now, he doubted that the West would ever muster the will to do so. He sees today as the last realistic chance to prevent a nuclear-armed Saddam.

BTW do you know when Shahristani left Iraq? I wonder just how current his information is.

[AZCowboy]

Shahristani left Iraq during Desert Storm, in 1991.

However, he continues to have contact with Shiites in Iraq, and continues to work humanitarian efforts to help Iraqi citizens.

From here:

While pleased that the sanctions are undermining Saddam’s domestic support, Shahristani worries about the extreme hardship they are causing the Iraqi people. He has put off his search for an academic post in the Gulf states in order to coordinate a relief effort in Iran that has been smuggling food and medicine to Iraqi civilians by canoe across the marshes on the Iraqi-Iranian border.

Shahristani also sends human rights monitors equipped with video cameras into Iraq. Some of their footage has been shown on major television networks. He himself has remained on the Iranian side of the border, providing logistical support, venturing occasionally into Iraq.

But if Saddam falls, he said, he intends to cross – maybe for good.

Although that article is not dated, the 60 Minutes report indicated that he continues to build a solid intelligence network of Iraqi “freedom fighters”, and implied that the current administration relies on some of the intelligence his network gathers.

[Brutus]

*Originally posted by Angelofthemist68 *
**December,Iam not sure how old You are and if you remember the Gulf War or anything before that,Iam wondering if you knew that the weapons used by Saddam were weapons the US gave to him,in the first place,so If you are going to blame him,you best be prepared to blame Our Government as well. Godspeed,Monica **

Can’t let that oft-repeated ignorant statement pass.

The United States has not sold (or a given) a weapon system to Iraq since the 60’s. Russia, then France, are Iraq’s largest suppliers of arms, and have been for all of Saddam’s career. France hasn’t quite stopped, it seems.

America does not produce the T-55, 62, or 72. Russia does. Boeing does not make the Mirage F.1, Dassault does. As always, I challenge you to provide evidence of one weapon system sold to Saddam by America.

[december]

*Originally posted by Angelofthemist68 *
**December,Iam not sure how old You are and if you remember the Gulf War or anything before that,Iam wondering if you knew that the weapons used by Saddam were weapons the US gave to him,in the first place,so If you are going to blame him,you best be prepared to blame Our Government as well. Godspeed,Monica **

It’s not a question of blaming or punishing Saddam.

Bush’s goal, which I support, is to protect the US and the rest of the world against the harm Saddam would do with a nuclear arsenal.

[Henry_B]

December

Bush’s goal, which I support, is to protect the US and the rest of the world against the harm Saddam would do with a nuclear arsenal.

Yeah, but who the fuck will protect me and the rest of the world against the harm Bushistas does now when they have all that arsenal? Iran, Syria, Pakistan next?

Bush said yesterday: “We can be threatened from far away…”

I agree. We can nowadays be threatened from far away.

Henry

[december]

*Originally posted by Henry B *
Yeah, but who the fuck will protect me and the rest of the world against the harm Bushistas does now when they have all that arsenal? Iran, Syria, Pakistan next?

What you say has been true for many years now. It’s a fact that the US has such a powerful military that it could conquer any country in the world, if it wanted to. It’s fortunate that the US hasn’t been inclined in that direction.

[leander]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
**Can’t let that oft-repeated ignorant statement pass.

The United States has not sold (or a given) a weapon system to Iraq since the 60’s. Russia, then France, are Iraq’s largest suppliers of arms, and have been for all of Saddam’s career. France hasn’t quite stopped, it seems.

America does not produce the T-55, 62, or 72. Russia does. Boeing does not make the Mirage F.1, Dassault does. As always, I challenge you to provide evidence of one weapon system sold to Saddam by America. **

Here’s one.

And another.

And another.

And another.

And another.

And another.

And another.

And another.

And another.

And another.

And another.

And another.

And another.

And another.

---

ps - december is old enough and wise enough to “remember the Gulf War or anything before that.” Whether you disagree with him or not, please do not underestimate his knowledge. (That’s what makes him so damn loveable)

[elucidator]

Unless of course you start building undesireable airports, such as Grenada. Fearful threats like that simply cannot be ignored, hence the courageous glory of Operation Urgent Fury, when America routed the dreaded elite Cuban bulldozer commandos!

Or say, you are Manuel Noriega, so ugly you look like someone set your face on fire and you put it out with a pineapple. Or you are Sandanistas, insolently rebelling against a stern government installed for your own good. Or Chile…

[Gyrate]

*Originally posted by december *
**What you say has been true for many years now. It’s a fact that the US has such a powerful military that it could conquer any country in the world, if it wanted to. It’s fortunate that the US hasn’t been inclined in that direction. **

<cough>China</cough>

Sorry – I was just practicing for Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?

[jjimm]

Not that leander needs any help with cites, but here’s a PDF Washington Post article from 1993 showing the breakdown of arms suppliers. The US comes in second for number of deals, behind Germany’s whopping total, though in “weighted importance” it only accounts for 3.5% and is joint 6th with the UK.

[Brutus]

Damn, leander, not to poo-poo your googling, but I challenged someone “to provide evidence of one weapon system sold to Saddam by America”, not to provide evidence that dual-use tech was sold to Iraq.