and I would rather negotiate than go to war.
How precisely is Saddam left unchecked? I think he’s been relatively well contained. There have been leaks in the embargo here and there, but I haven’t seen anything to indicate he is about to launch an attack against anyone. He’s still much weaker than he was before the Gulf war.
As yet I’ve heard no one, not even the Bush Administration assert he was anywhere near being able to develop ICBM’s as you posit in your hypothetical situation.
Not overtly. But they do commit to “[not] allow[ing] a dictator to systematically violate those Resolutions”.
Also, from the letter:
“Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein’s last chance to disarm using peaceful means.”
Meaning “no more resolutions after 1441 … and after that, we’re willing to eschew peaceful means of compliance”. That’s strong statement of support for military action, IMHO. The letter DOES favor UN backing of any military action, but I’d bet they would harp on that point when push comes to shove.
Meaning, in an uncharitable interpretation, “Let’s you and him fight”.
Notics that nowhere do they themselves commit to actual participation in Bush’s war - beyond, that is, cheering the US forces on until things turn sour, and then conveniently having their own hands clean.
Both have the intended purpose of saving thousands or millions of lives, although you evidently think war will fail in this intent.
Now I’m confused. Do you mean Iraq’s threat is insignificant compared to the strength of the United States? Or, Iraq’s threat is insignificant compared to other threats?
Either way, I disagree. Saddam is actively seeking nuclear weapons. The risk that he will obtain them is a significant threat to the United States and is one of the largest threats we face today.
Why don’t Franc and Germany feel as threatened by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq?
France and Germany seem to have had more experience over the past couple of decades with terroristic bombing and other events, (within their national borders), than the US. Why don’t they feel more vulnerable than the US? Obviously they are closer to Iraq.
They have close economic ties with Saddam and did not play the primary role diplomatically or militarily in putting down his aggression last time.
All that letter has – and will – accomplished is to highlight the disconnect between those leaders and their electorate. Not only is public opinion in Europe overwhelmingly against military action against Saddam at present time, but just today, the European Parliament reflected that view by a vote of 287 to 209, urging the US “not to go at it alone.” Mind you, as opposed to the letter, this is the official EU stand on this issue.
From the NYT (free subscription required)
**
Further evidence of the divise nature of the letter can be found in The Guardian:
‘Gang of eight’ provokes EU rift
**
Don’t be misled by Dubya’s lackeys in Europe. The message being sent out by the Europeans is loud and clear.
Let us suppose that your are the Prime Minister of Grand Fenwick. As such, you bear the grave burden of your nations foreign policy upon your shoulders, or at least until the peasants arrive to load you into the tumbrel for People’s Justice.
The biggest, baddest, craziest, and richest country in the world seeks allies in a noble crusa…endeavor. There are clearly advantages to be had in sucking up to, that is, bravely aligning one’s nation with, the USA. But you must assess the risks.
First, you measure the distance from Baghdad to Queen Juliana’s Palace, as compared to the range of Scud missiles. A reassuring assessment. Secondly, you enquire with the Ministry of Trade as to the level of current exports of Pinot Grand Fenwick to Iraq. Negligable. Finally, you assess the likelihood that America’s conflict with Iraq might compel the urgent enlistment of a brace of longbowmen. Two chances, slim and none. You instruct the Minister of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hint broadly to the nearest remotely official American of the trend in your thinking, and inquire politely if someone might be available to discuss trade relations between your two noble nations.
Corrections: Grand Fenwick is, of course, a soveriegn Duchy, and its venerable ruler is the Grand Dutchess Juliana.
“Even Homer nods”. D’oh!
Errata: My point isn’t that there are too many dictators to topple, but that Saddam’s threat is insignificant compared to the most powerful nation on earth.
Hm. The point is that Saddam is clearly not making any attempt to disarm, and is pursuing nuclear weaponry, along with various other sundry weapons of mass destruction. My understanding is that he basically has all components necessary for an A-bomb, except for the enriched Uranium.
So, to put it another way. (1) Weapons of mass destruction are threatening.
(2) Saddam has shown no reluctance to use WMDs over the past 30 years, unlike every other nation on earth, including Libya and the US.
So, (3) Saddam is threatening.
Errata: * How precisely is Saddam left unchecked? I think he’s been relatively well contained. There have been leaks in the embargo here and there, but I haven’t seen anything to indicate he is about to launch an attack against anyone.*
Oh. Well, he mobilized the Republican Guard to mass near the Kuwaiti border in 1994, resulting in another US troop buildup, Security Council resolution, and Iraq backing down.
In 2000, Iraq attempted to mass its army near the Syrian border, supposedly to show Arab solidarity against Israel. That expedition was later called off.
So, he’s still making military maneuvers of various sorts. But he doesn’t (yet) have a deliverable nuke to threaten Tel Aviv or Saudi oil fields with. Once he has it, it’s fair to assume that he will use them threateningly.
As for whether he’s contained, let’s remember that he’s selling oil through Turkey, Iran and Syria. The only group adversely affected by sanctions are those Iraqis who are not members of the armed services, the Baath party, or one of Saddam’s eleven-plus security services, each with overlapping responsibilities.
So Saddam has the resources and will to build a nuke, and a country the size of France to hide it in.
I, for one, have not been convinced that Iraq presents an immediate and viable threat to the US.
The US is dealing with a medium term threat in this case. It is not a short-term threat: if it was a short-term threat, it might be too late for military action.
So why are we singling out Saddam?
Unlike other seekers of WMDs, Saddam is more adventurous (having engaged in umpteen boneheaded military excursions with surrounding countries in 1975, 1982?-1988?, 1990-91) and most importantly, is a serial miscalculator. Thus, deterrence is a risky option: it breaks down when one of the parties is expansionary and has tendencies towards wishful thinking, unchecked by a skeptical committee of advisors.
Gadaffi crapped in his pants when Reagan shot a missile into his tent and he hasn’t been heard from again. This is opposed to Saddam that didn’t get the message, when we defeated him. That is one reason he is being singled out. He is the biggest bully among several others and if he gets his ass kicked the other bullies won’t be so bold. There are many ordinary people in the region that don’t like us simply because we have supported rulers like him. Again, part of this message (I hope) is those guys can no longer count on our support.
As to Europe’s support, I watched a news conference today with Bush and the Italian Prime Minister. There is no doubt in my mind that we have Italy’s support after seeing that. I also saw an ex-minister of Poland being interviewed. He said that if Germany didn’t want to support us any longer Poland would gladly let us base troops there. Russia is coming around to our side. France doesn’t like losing the oil deal they have with Iraq, but knows if they are not with us that they will be out in the cold after a war. Feb. 5 will give them all an excuse to change their minds.
Do we really want to leave our troops there until after it cools down again next fall?
It would be suicidal from Saddam to ever attack the US, and I don’t think that criminal dictator has the courage to be ever a martyr, what is his cause anyway? I think is scarier to think about radical war freaks like Bush or Sharon. I think either the US or Israel are more likely to use their Nuclear Weapons than Iraq or North Korea. They also know that they can get away with it. Oh but sorry I forgot that American lives are worth more than anyother.
Nor do I think that Saddam Hussein will attack the US. What I am concerned about are these things that Mr Hussein might do:
I’m confused. Why would this be an argument for war? If anything, it’s an argument to be isolationist again.
To clarify, it’s not American lives I’m worried about. It’s the lives of Iraqis, Israelis, Palestinians, Iranians, Saudis, Kurds, Shii Muslims, democrats, and Kuwaitis I’m concerned for.
And, of course, Americans, if you count a possible Al Qaeda link-up in the future.
andres: *It would be suicidal from Saddam to ever attack the US, and I don’t think that criminal dictator has the courage to be ever a martyr, what is his cause anyway? *
Well, that’s one evaluation of Saddam. One would think that the guy would have backed down by now, and put Iraq back on a more normal developmental path. Alas, this is a character who is prone to miscalculation.
Lest you think that he has put his military adventures behind him, here are the 5 mistakes that Saddam has admitted to during Gulf War I, as related by more than one Iraqi source:*
Firstly, it was a mistake to invade before acquiring a nuclear weapon, since that could have prevented a US attack.
It was a mistake not to have seized the Saudi oil fields and rig them for destruction.
It was a mistake to have returned Western hostages in 1990, rather than keeping them and placing them at high-value facilities.
It was a mistake not to attack US troops when the began deploying, when they were more vulnerable.
He put too much faith in French and Russian diplomats.
Based on the above, I would say that Saddam doesn’t seem to be especially reluctant to engage in further adventures, IMHO.
Source: Pollack (2002), p.266
What about chemical weapons? As used by Iraq, but by no other country since WWI? Frankly, to say that Israel would use its nukes so casually makes me wonder about this observer’s grip on reality.
I am very afraid of Iraq.
It is well known that Iraq has an ongoing and well funded program to acquire chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The reason he is spending billions to acquire them is so he can use them or use the threat of them. If he acquires them he has shown he has no qualms about using them against his enemies both foreign and domestic. The countries Hussein considers his enemies are the US, Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iran just to name the most obvious. North Korea has shown us that if a country puts its mind to it it can acquire nuclear weapons and North Korea is much poorer than Iraq. Once he acquires these weapons he then becomes almost invasion proof. He can then rebuild his conventional forces in preparation to invade a neighbor to acquire their oil fields. Once this happens the US has two options; either risk nuclear war with Iraq or cede the Middle East and its oil wealth to Saddam Hussein. Also Hussein might figure that a terror attack using chemical or biological weapons might not be traced to him and would cause enough damage to the US to either scare us out of the region or render us incapable of opposing him.
We have three options:
If you replace “well known” with “often claimed without evidence” you’ll have a better sense of the situation.
Merely without public evidence, IMHO. Some people think this is a deal breaker, while I do not.
Honestly, it seems like this issue boils down to a matter of faith. While I personally don’t possess evidence of Iraq’s WMD programs, I have full faith that someone does, and full faith that after the Iraqi crisis has passed, it will be reasonably clear for all to see.
I’m also of the opinion, though, that the setup Iraq’s WMD infrastructure will allow some plausible deniability (Hey! Those weren’t rolling biological weapons plants! They were hospitals-on-wheels!). Conservatives and liberals the world over will likely continue to debate over the true nature of Iraq’s WMD infrastructure for decades to come.
This part is still pretty shaky, evidence wise. Even if he was, the mere fact that Saddam is “threatening” hardly constitutes self defense.
The continued resistance of the international community, including some who would actually be directly threatened by a theoretical Iraq Nuke (like Iran) and other WMD is a sign to me that this opinion of Saddam as a threat isn’t that well supported.
Funny you should mention that since the US is the only country that’s ever actually used a nuclear weapon and was complicit in Saddam’s previous use of WMD. oooh he’s so uncivilized.
N Korea apparently has the bomb and has recently made some very scary sounding threats. Yet does that mean we need to go to war with North Korea? No, we’re not that scared.
As in, he was successfully contained without conflict in this incident.
Wow, Saddam is moving his troops around inside his own borders :eek: , certainly a direct threat to the US!
Yet hasn’t he shown far less military action since being contained?
Skink There is plenty of evidence. Here is an interview with a scientist who was directly involved with the weapons programs.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/22/hamza.cnna/
Here is a interview with someone who wrote a book about Iraq’s weapons program. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/jan0304.html#0129031156pm