Surely one’s criterion should be able to be stated within a sentence, or a paragraph at most?
My own tuppence: “If it could reasonably be assumed that Iraq would USE chemical, biological or nuclear weapons without such an invasion.”
This is plainly not the case as of yet.
X-slayer
I suggest you either missed - or intentionally ignored this portion of my post that immediately followed what you quoted.
To use your own words from later in this thread That was then, this is now. And why - as an American, should I give a shit about the Kurds? As opposed to any other ethnic minority worldwide. Heck, those Chechens(sp?) strike a pretty romantic profile, with those mustaches and funny hats. Let’s help them out.
Further, what non-military efforts have we tried to better the situation of the Kurds? As I recall, Turkey (our bud) isn’t too keen on Kurds attaining more autonomy. And I seem to recall some promises during Gulf War I to help out the Kurds should they act against Hussein. Well, they took quite a hit waiting for the promised cavalry to come riding over the hill.
Personally, I’m really sick and tired of hearing about Kurds and poison gas in the discussion of the present action. Has ANY authority figure suggested that helping Kurds, or redressing past wrongs done to Kurds is anywhere near the top of factors warranting current mobilization? Cite please? Otherwise, pleas bury that red herring - its starting to smell.
You also say:
Countries fail to live up to their international obligations every day. I was not aware that trade restrictions and no-fly zones were ineffective in minimizing any threat from Iraq.
I agree with the crazy greek. Who did Iraq surrender to? The US, or the international community? My understanding was that the last gulf war was presented as a major international undertaking. If so, absent an EXTREME URGENT IMMEDIATE THREAT, I question the US now acting unilaterally to enforce the outcome?
With regards to other nuclear nations, I was not aware of Isreal being entirely transparent with respect to their nuclear capabilities. And - much more recently than the gassing of the Kurds, the 2 nuclear powers of India and Pakistan were bristling at each other across disputed territory. I read and heard several commentators contending that that situation (and others) continues to pose a far greater threat to world peace than anything within Iraq’s capability.
None of this is to say that Iraq is not a threat, or that Hussein is not a bad guy. But is Iraq such a threat that they require this degree of attention? And is war the best way to deal with him?
I don’t know how old you are, but when I was younger, Qaddafi(sp?) in Libya was generally presented as the all-purpose bogeyman. And there have been clear ties of Libya with terrorism. Why don’t we take him out while we’re in the neighborhoos? Libya has invaded portions of Chad, but hell, that’s just desert. Speaking of Chad - the US didn’t pick sides during the decades long civil war in that resource-deficient country. Wonder why?
It really burns me when apologists for this military action start raising humanitarian reasons. It seems to me that the US generally proclaims humanitarian reasons as an afterthought - a post hoc justification for action we want to take for other reasons.
I do not see a consistent US foreign policy - under this or immediately prior administrations. Situations seem to be are addressed piecemeal. The primary determinants seem to be:
I would be interested in hearing situations where the US acted recently in furtherance of humanitarian interests, at the expense of one or more of these 3 factors. I’m not saying it never happened. Just that I suspect it would be a rather short list.
If we wish to influence other countries to become more democratic and respect human rights, I strongly would prefer that we try to influence them through trade, or economic/agricultural/technological/medical aid. However, that would require a willingness to forego economic advantages in support of such principles. Would China enjoy MFN status if it did not have a billion consumers? Would the humanitarian Saudis be our friends if they did not sit upon huge oil reserves and (up to now) provide military access to the region?
We also might increasingly liberally enter into mutual defense treaties - but only with nations that agree to certain democratic principles. Maybe even tie-in non-nuclear/WMD proliferation to trade relations or defense treaties.
And we could array our military primarily defensively. That might require that we occasionally take a hit. But if we did, we would unleash our might without mercy - hopefully deterring such actions thereafter.
No, I do not wish a recurrence of 9/11. But we do not exist alone in the international community. And it seems unrealistic - and essentially unfair - for us to act as tho all externalities resulting from our wealth and prominence should take place on foreign soil.
A basic disagreement between folk here seems to concern the extent to which the US should be entitled to dictate how the rest of the world conducts itself. As I see it, the reality is that we are an extremely wealthy nation. We attained our wealth - in part - by displacing and eliminating a native population, enslavement of another population, forcibly taking territory from Mexico, and attacking Spain. Good thing we did this a couple of centuries ago, when such actions were more common, and there was no superpower positioned to stop us.
I’m not saying we should be wringing our hands, paying eternal penance for the “sins” of our ancestors. But I do not understand why sovereign states should welcome US intervention in their domestic concerns any more than we would welcome outside intervention in ours.
Well said.
soooo, I take it that you and Dinsdale are of the group that would not take any proof whatsoever as a prelude or justification to war and that we should leave Iraq alone.
Well, it might be pretty interesting in about 5 or 6 years to actually see a giant mushroom cloud. Of course, that just means i have to visit Israel soon before it goes up in smoke.
As far as making sure that the regime of Iraq gets better once we overthrow Saddam, of course that is the intent, but I dont think there is any guarantee. We’re still working on Afghanistan and thats a very slow and delicate process. My opinion is that the military objective of the US is not to make Iraq better, it is to make sure it doesnt get any worse.
also, I think Turkey objects to kurds creating a sovereign nation on turkish territory. If the Kurds have a representative in govt in Iraq and that the Iraqi govt doesnt actively seek to exterminate them, I’m pretty sure the Kurds might reconsider the whole Kurds in Turkey scenario.
I’m sory, I must please ask you to elucidate on that sentence. The discovery of missiles capable of delivering bio-toxins already fulfills your criteria, yet you say it doesnt. 12 missiles could make it a very bad day for any nation within rage of those missiles. The payload may be unaccounted for but did you see how small those missiles are? The payload could be hidden in an apartment in Bahgdad and no inspector would ever find it.
“Well, it might be pretty interesting in about 5 or 6 years to actually see a giant mushroom cloud.”
It MIGHT (your word) be equally interesting to see Sadaam Hussein still sitting in Iraq in 5 or 6 years not having done squat to his neighbors or the United States as a result of continued economic sanctions and no-fly zones.
X, on what basis do you make your alarming predictions? Are you adept at clairovoyance? Have you Miss Cleo on your speed dial?
And as to the matter of “proof” - perhaps the irrefutable proof that is being held in abeyance due to “security reasons” - who’s going to believe them now? We have, at minimum, two examples of bald faced lies foisted upon us - the Aluminum Tube bullshit and the Report that Never Existed. Of course, the Boy Who Cried “War” will be believed by those who already have the faith that surpasseth all understanding. But not by me, nor by many others. Even truth from his lips is sullied, and suspect.
If a leader seeks to send our youth to kill and die for a cause, that cause must be entirely clear. At the minimum, he owes the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, or God help us all. He has failed in his duty, and stained his office and his oath. Whether due to ignorance or malice is entirely insignificant, it is so.
Good heavens, if you say this:
How can you follow it with this? :
As far as I know GWB has not sent anyone to kill or die for any cause, YET. So let’s hold off on the predictions and the fulfilling of requirements for said predictions. And last I heard Miss Cleo has “retired”.
This is a matter of much gravity. First, I’d have to have very good information that the Iraqi regime tried to kill my daddy. Then, I’d need a congress full of yes-men lackeys.
Then and only then would I be prepared to wage war against a sovereign nation.
Dinsdale, thanks - we think very much alike, and you see the situation clearly, unlike those that want war; I can see Elucidator and plnnr are also of the same mindset.
X, I was correcting your post when I made the statement about India and Pakistan; you implied that they revealed their programs willingly, which is not all true. Whether then or now, it’s an important point. And as far as invading their neighbors, breaking international agreements, etc.: do you know the history of these two countries? Has the word Kashmir ever come up in a conversation near you and not referred to a garment? These two nations possessing nuclear weapons are a much larger threat to regional and even world stability then pretty much any other single example, period. You don’t believe me? Do some research…
And I am saying exactly what you typed: to paraphrase, that it is not the duty of the US to redress a matter established between a party and the UN. It is up to the UN; what’s so hard about that? You seem to think that if the UN doesn’t respond the way we want them to, we should somehow take up the mantle and immediately become the world’s policeman. Why now, and what about all of the other shady characters out there that need to be cleaned up? Unless Iraq were to invade the US or provide some sort of imminent threat to the US, there is no way we can invade them and keep a shred of moral, ethical, or legal balance. Not sure of your reference to the League of Nations, unless you want to point out the ineffectiveness of the organization to prevent war; if so, let me know what your point is, and I will be sure to address it.
And to your last statement: my point was that your post was incorrect in its statements and assumptions. As to the OP: you stated that
Greco
If I made you think by my post that both these countries voluntarily allowed inspections once it was clear that they do have nuclear wepons then that is an error. Whether they were coerced, blackmailed, threatened, pushed, shoved or dragged in kicking and screaming, the fact is that they are in compliance with UN nuclear inspections now. In the future, maybe not. North Korea seems to be coming along now so theres not even the question of any military action against them.
Duly noted.
also duly noted. The world is split nearly down the middle on this issue. I am not advocation one side from the other. My belief in this matter is irrelevant to this question. Ultimately, History will judge who is right and wrong in this matter and we all know who writes history.
I hope y’all don’t mind if I jump in cold here, and try my own answer to the OP.
My problem is that, in a world full of threats, the Administration plucked Iraq out of the bag, and asked us for a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on Iraq alone, with no rationale.
Like I said, the world is full of threats. Pakistan already has nukes and missiles, and they came very, very close to using them last summer. North Korea may have a nuke or two, and may have a bunch more real soon. Iran is alleged to be a year or two away from having nukes. Iraq is more like 3-5 years away, or so they say. Al-Qaeda’s still out there somewhere, and we’ve got a rebuilding job in Afghanistan that needs real progress to keep that country from lapsing back into chaos.
So what I’m looking for is a reasonably sound rationale, worldview, whatever, under which Iraq is logically at the top of the list. And a plan for how we’re going to deal with the most serious threats on the list, as a group.
Three things don’t belong in this rationale, IMHO:
Saddam’s treatment of his own countrymen: as others have said aplenty, there’s a long list of places where we should intervene if that’s a major criterion. Unless we’re really serious about applying this standard on a much wider basis, of course. But Bush plainly isn’t.
Saddam’s wars against Iran and Kuwait: we were in his corner when he fought Iran, fercryinoutloud. And between that and April Glaspie’s infamous miscommunication, Saddam had reason at the time to believe it was OK with us if he grabbed Kuwait too. If he has engaged in wars of aggression over our objections, then that would be a different story.
Enforcement of UN resolutions, unless we’re planning to make a to-do over all the UN resolutions that are going unenforced in the world right now.
I must admit I’m also not keen on getting all huffy about his having weapons that we helped him get, or winked at his having when we were his buddies. But I’m willing to see that they have a place in the argument - if, again, we consider who else has such weapons, and include them in the comparison. If both Iraq and Lower Slobbovia have chemical weapons, then we have to have a rationale for why we’re not as worried about Lower Slobbovia.
Absolutely, Saddam is a threat. But why he’s the one threat above all others we can’t and mustn’t wait until next winter to deal with, I don’t understand at all.
And that’s why it’s easy to believe there are real reasons why the Administration’s sights are on Iraq that aren’t part of the Administration’s public case, but that have been advanced by conservative schools of thought in other fora. Such as, Saudi Arabia could have an Islamic revolution any day now, and we’d better have a reliable backup source of oil if that happens. Or that overthrowing Saddam would enable us to remake the entire Middle East. Or who knows what.
But without that rationale, it makes a great deal of sense to believe this war is really about something else, and that the American people and their elected representatives have been excluded from the real debate. And that’s not how a democracy is supposed to work.
Whether or not India and Pakistan are cooperating with UN nuclear inspections doesn’t change the fact that they have nukes, so I fail to see the importance of inspections in their cases: inspections don’t keep them from creating mushroom clouds in each other’s territory. And an inspection program that accepts North Korean nukes as a fait accompli will be pretty useless there, too. And I’m curious as to whether we will insist on anywhere near the tight standards for North Korean inspections that we demanded for Iraq. It sure doesn’t look it.
I will reluctantly support a war if it is done on behalf of a broad based coalition of nations. Such a coalition would have to include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Russia among others.
Our government may not be willing to put it’s confidential information onto CNN to show me the depth of the threat, but they could still use it to convince other governments.
To build a broad-based coalition, though, we would need to do many things:
- demonstrate by our actions in Afghanistan that we can remain dedicated to the process of nation building.
- demonstrate by our efforts to work with Israel and Palestine that we are dedicated to peace, and are not blindly anti-Arab.
- provide a reasonable framework for what post-war Iraq will look like. Include discussions of how we will deal with attempted Kurdish secessions, whether we will accept it if they democratically elect a Shiite fundamentalist government and how much money are we willing to spend to rebuild the country.
- provide concrete evidence to other countries (though it doesn’t have to be public) that Saddam and Iraq are a credible and imminent threat to the region and the world.
All of which means that we need to back off the high noon deadline, let the inspections run and do the behind the scenes legwork to maybe go for it next January.
My mindset is “If Iran and Saudi Arabia aren’t scared of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, I have to question our ‘proof’ of their existence. They are far more likely to be on the receiving end of them than I am.”
RTFirefly, well said.
One comment re India and Pakistan: there are no UN inspections for either Pakistan or India, as they posess nukes outside of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. In essence, no one said they could, but they did it anyhow; now that they have them, no one has been able to get them to consider getting rid of them.
You also state:
Well, Iraq let the last series of inspections wipe out their nuke capability, as well; even best-guess answers put them way behind NK in the development of a weapon. So why is it OK to let NK off the hook, and not Saddam? NK has a lot of the same characteristics that Iraq has:
Run by a dictator who has sorely abused his people; even with aid from the US, Japan and SK, people there were to the point of starving to death.
Routinely threatens his main neighbor
Has a well-developed military; has been accused of de-stabilization of SK through subversion and use of teams of spies and commandos; has threatened the use of force on many occasions; thought to have kidnapped SK citizens.
Constantly attempts to develop nuke capability, and links have been found between NK and Pak, Iran, and possibly Russia to nuke technology and development, all against signed agreements.
If its simply a matter of degree, then great: someone needs to publish the scale, so we all know when someone has crossed the threshhold. I guess it all depends how bad you want a war, and what you are willing to do to get it; I think it is fairly obvious that, no matter what the NK regime did, the US administration would do everything they could to avoid war on that peninsula again. Its been close to 50 years that the NK regimes have thumbed their noses at us, and we haven’t really threatened a war with them since. So what’s the big deal with Iraq again? Don’t the arguments start sounding pretty contrived to you yet?
Maybe it’s just me…
Ahem… I was bit loose with my pronouns, there.
I believe Iran and Saudi Arabia exist, I doubt our proof about the weapons existence.
I believe Iran and Saudie Arabia are more likely to be on the receiving end of the weapons.
You know, Rufus, you got me thinking. If the US wants to adopt the position of enforcing compliance with every UN obligation, the UN might be willing to provide us with a list we could take care of in-house.
The news already mentioned that the US has a broad based coalition which includes Turkey and saudi arabia. It just does not include France, Germany, China and Russia. Why is russia a critical element of this new coalition? They werent in the coalition during the gulf war.
Thats the spirit!
**
- demonstrate by our actions in Afghanistan that we can remain dedicated to the process of nation building.
**
That would be more of a PR move isnt it? Not really germane to the situation at hand.
**
- demonstrate by our efforts to work with Israel and Palestine that we are dedicated to peace, and are not blindly anti-Arab.
**
Uh this is a powderkeg waiting to explode and what Saddam exactly wants. I think that keeping the 2 issues separate would serve more to keep things clearer.
**
- provide a reasonable framework for what post-war Iraq will look like. Include discussions of how we will deal with attempted Kurdish secessions, whether we will accept it if they democratically elect a Shiite fundamentalist government and how much money are we willing to spend to rebuild the country.
**
This is more on the basis of removing Saddam from power rather than forcing him into compliance. This should be a secondary objective not a primary one. Putting this in the forefront would serve the anti-arab and anti-arab sovereignty issue. Not a good thing IMO.
**
- provide concrete evidence to other countries (though it doesn’t have to be public) that Saddam and Iraq are a credible and imminent threat to the region and the world.
**
But what of the countries we dont trust that much? Some countries could leak that intelligence information and when its time to reveal it to the general public, it would be nowhere to be seen and thus be dubbed a great big lie.
I am not sure about this because well Im no Miss Cleo, (I just play her on this board. 
) But I sense some urgency as far as the deadline is concerned. I used to explain this off as posturing (to force diplomatic negotiation) but with military buildups and tactical planning already being implimented, I am pretty sure this not posturing anymore.
Iran and Saudi may not be in the know. They must have told something to King Fahd because he is allowing a troop buildup in his country and he is accepting the possibility of Saddam being exiled. Iran …well, I dont think we trust iran that much and I am not knowledgeable of their intelligence capabilities. If we showed them how we spy in Iraq they might freak out and think we do that to them …which is a very distinct possibility.
greco_loco:
First of all, sorry for not responding to you in the other thread (whichever it may have been). I sometimes lose track of which threads I’ve posted in, considering how many war-related threads there are at any given moment. At any rate…
Recall how quick to cooperate Pakistan was after we went into Afghanistan? Now, they may not have been quite as helpful as we would’ve liked, but I submit that they were more cooperative than they would’ve been had we not been willing to use force. To some extent, yes, many leaders of the Middle East only understand force. Saddam certainly obeys this rule.
The governments in the Middle East already spread propoganda to their people telling them that we’re Evil Imperialists. The people there already hate us. Terrorists are already given payouts by the government. I contend that anyone who would be willing to kill innocents is already going to be signing up, because they already have what they perceive as ample reason to do so. Can you give me specific reasons why you believe that there would long-term increases in recruitment to terrorist organizations? Further, can you give a method of eliminating terrorist recruitment in the Middle East other than systematically tearing apart the infrastructure that supports it?
Yeah, I think exporting Western democracy is a pretty good idea. If their current government structure was simply different than ours, than I would be all for letting them be. However, their government structure isn’t harmless - it supports terrorism as a viable tool of influence, it kills and tortures its own people, and it’s extremely oppressive. Here, when confronted with people who have different beliefs, we get on talk shows and bitch about it. There, they kill them. I’d say exporting our way of life might not be a bad idea, but I’d be perfectly willing to export any way of life that wasn’t inherently evil. (To clarify: Yes, I consider the murder of innocent people based on differing belief systems to be evil. There, I said it: radical Islamic fundamentalism is evil. So sue me.)
Self-determination would be nice, but the current political structure of the Middle East won’t allow it. Dissenters are killed. That makes it pretty difficult for the people to push for change, dontcha think?
Jeff
When Iraq attacks an ally, then we invade. Until then any invasion makes us worse then him. His crimes in the past are Americas crimes, his gas attacks on the Kurds were made possible by America and govt. knew all about at the time.