You do realize that the main one of Saddam's driving political goals is wholly contrary to that of radical islamic groups.
Indeed. He wouldn't mind if someone else got the blame (though in the Bush Whitehouse that's probably not going to happen). I do believe one of his faults is what was one of our faults through the Cold War: the enemy of his enemy is his friend. So if both would like the US out of the way, he's willing to bolige some fundamental Uslam. He's certainly acting friendly to the radicals, building new Mosquaes and according to Powell's report, harboring terrorists.
Ps: I don't watch Fox news. I'm not a "conservative" in the political sense like you imply. I'm just arguing that he does have motive, apparent means, and will use subversive strategies and tactics to get what he wants. So he's a threat to be sure. But I'm still wavering over whether it's so immmediate that we can't help the UN inspectors "out" his little racket for a little longer, and in the meantime, find other means. However, my is blank as to what they could be -- all he does with sanctions is keep and/or steal what he can get and his people starve.
[quote]Show me how that is more than what was already going on before 9/11. You cannot.<hr></blockquote>I am now convinced you're just stupid.
Only significant terrorist incident in 2000 was the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. 17 dead. Apart from India/Pakistan nastiness, and Palestinian/Israeli stuff, no other islamic trouble that can be attributed to Al Qaeda.
Prior to 9/11 in 2001, plane hijack in Yemen with US ambassador on board, all hostages released. Letter bomb to american doctor in Saudi Arabia. Thats it pre-9/11.
The following incidents occured between 9/11/2001 and 12/01/2002:
French tanker in Yemen, American diplomat Foley killed in Jordan, multiple attacks on churches in Pakistan, synagogue truck bomb in Tunisia, car bomb in Israeli resort hotel in Mombasa, shoulder fired SAM attack on Israeli plane in Mombasa, Bali nightclub, random shootings of American servicement in Kuwait and Afghanistan.
All invading Afghanistan did was move Al Qaeda to another country. Do you really think letting a bunch of tribal warlords whom you just bought off with CIA money was really going to effectively deal with Al Qaeda.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Is Saddam Hussein completely stupid, or what?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No one ever accused Saddam of being bright.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
In 1991 his military was crushed. The same thing will happen again this time round. He must have his head buried deep in the desert sand if he honestly thinks he's going to be any contest to US forces.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but he realizes that if he puts out enough lies and stalls long enough, the anti-bush camp will use the time to try and turn western public opinion against war and thereby avoid war. Delay is in his best interests.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Doesn't he want to stay on as President of Iraq? He could do just that, if he declared those weapons as requested, so the numbers matched those of what Powell stated this morning.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
See above. Delay works in his advantage to stay in power.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Or is war going to happen by default, no matter what he declares?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since his statement to the UN said Iraq has no WMD, then no matter what he declares, he is now in breach or 1441. This does not make war inevitable. It does probably make regime change probable, but not certain, though whether through internal change, exile or war is debatable.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
If the weapons are there, to not declare them suggests the man is either plain stupid, or he is a victim that same old "avoiding loss of face no matter what the cost" syndrone. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Or that he is hoping he delays will work and give time for anti-Bush types to sway public opinion against war and therefore in his mind, against regime change.
[quote]Pakistan I can't comment on... so far they've placed as nicely with their big toys as India, so who knows?<hr></blockquote> You don't remember that as recently as December 2001 they were threatening to blow the living daylights out of each other--as they do every year actually.
You want to know what Pakistan is like--imagine Afghanistan with nuclear capability. The northern part of the country is tribal land with almost no connection to the central govt. The previous Afghan/Russian war has seriously destabilized the area, with any number of weapons flowing into an area where there are traditionally a large number of gun manufacturers anyway (copying weapons as they have since the British got their asses kicked up there). When I was in Peshawar about 10 years ago, you could for a few bucks fire an anti-tank gun a the side of a hill, or try to buy a shoulder fired rocket. Everyone was heavily armed, and everyone did what they wanted. Afghans crossed the border freely and it was even worse away from larger towns.
The central government is even worse. They (the ISI), along with Bin Laden were financing the Taliban. They also freely export weapons technology. Where do you think North Korea got their nuclear capability from. Pakistan didn't get all those missiles for free.
I don't know about you but my skills as a mind reader sucks. However, looking at evidence as brought up, he is hidning something. That fact cannot be denied. Are you willing to stake your security or the security of his neighboring nations that it is not that bad?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing I have heard makes any sense, nothing seems to add up. I have such a headache now.
British Intelligence MI5 and MI6, and the NSC, NSA, CIA are all saying (in the UK press anyway) that the link from Saddam Hussein to al'Qaida is not true. It seems that all parties are lying, in the ongoing PR battle.
Whatever. It's all academic anyway. We are going to bomb the living sh*t out of those people, no matter what. The decisions were made months back, chemical weapons or none, nukes or none, bio-weapons or none, inspectors or not, UN mandate or not. Iraq's infrastructure is going to be destroyed, as in the last Gulf War. Saddam, and his scumbag henchpersons, just like the last time, will survive, somehow. Thousands of regular people, like the last time, won't.
With the Administration having almost complete command over an utterly compliant US media, it is impossible to voice an alternative viewpoint against the clamor of the "go kill the towel-heads" masses.
It is frustrating in the absolute, and I am almost feeling like just giving up, kidding myself, and going with what Bush and company tells us. It would make life so much easier.
[quote]If Iraq has all these chemical and biological weapons as alleged, then they must be extremely well hidden, because the inspections aren't coming up with anything. <hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Yes, the inspectors are not a joke....not at all! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
After all, if there is something there, they'll find it. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
That is the single weakest thing you have ever posted.
How can ANYONE here actually argue that Saddam doesn't have WOMD? Please. At least admit he has them. Then your opposition would at least be halfway reasonable. Oh, we'd still disagree. But at least you'd have some self-respect then.
SJO: <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Yes, the inspectors are not a joke....not at all! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
After all, if there is something there, they'll find it. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
That is the single weakest thing you have ever posted.<hr></blockquote>
SDW....I just posted a long, long reply to your post a few hours back but the server was down for maintenance and I lost the whole thing! grrr....sheeesh. I won't try to rewrite it, I am way too tired.
Anyway..what I meant to say in that first statement was that ..yes...if the inspectors were given prime intelligence and arrived at the relevant locations without prior warning, then the contraband, if there, would probably be uncovered. But so far, even given intel..they have found absolutely nothing..even analysing air, soil, water, floor and wall scrapings etc etc...in some 300 locations now. Either they are getting lousy intelligence or there really is nothing to be found...or the whole lot has been moved. I completely agree with you in that it is so easy to conceal weapons in a country of 170,000 square miles, much of it very sparsely populated, large areas uninhabited and remote. And....if Saddam Hussein really has these WMD...then they are probably hidden extremely well...after all they have had 4 years without supervision to dispose of and/or hide them.
[quote]How can ANYONE here actually argue that Saddam doesn't have WOMD? Please. At least admit he has them. Then your opposition would at least be halfway reasonable. Oh, we'd still disagree. But at least you'd have some self-respect then.[/qb]<hr></blockquote>
Again..I never claimed he doesn't have this stuff. I am sure he does. Most people are. But...going to war over it could make a dodgy situation extremely nasty. I am very worried about what may happen in the event of the bombs falling, and our troops are in the thick of it. Saddam is not going to get into a desert brawl..he knows he stands no chance there...he got soundly licked in 1991...so he will take the battle to the streets of Baghdad and other cities. It may easily become a nasty guerilla war where each city block is gained after fierce fighting...and...I am sure our troops are better trained and equipped, but the Iraqis are on their home turf and know the area...which is a huge advantage in guerilla warfare. Then..there is the probability that Saddam *may* have stashed chemical weapons in houses, apartment blocks, hotels, basements, hospitals, mosques, churches, you name it. War, with its falling bombs, grenades, fires and chaos has a nasty habit of turning a "contained" situation into something where all hell breaks loose... and barrels and canisters of VX (a few gallons could kill thousands) which could be literally *anywhere* in Baghdad etc...hit by a bomb could result in a total disaster.
The other possibility mentioned in the BBC and CNN recently was Saddam, on hearing about Bush's aggressive stance, removing all his banned weaponry from Iraq's territory and moving it clandestinely across the borders of eastern Jordan and Saudi Arabia, western Iran and southeast Syria. This would be so easy to do (bio. and chem. weapons are compact and easily transported in private trucks or cars). The Iraqis have been smug re. access to sites, haven't blocked access to the inspectors one bit....presumably because they *know* the inspectors...no matter how long and hard they look, are not gonna find zip.
Then what: we go to war...obviously at some point we will win the fighting part...but the weapons are not in Iraq. Our troops would go combing Iraq and find nothing...because Saddam has in fact told a partial truth in that "Iraq has no WMD"...(they are hidden outside the borders). Their absence would make us look pretty darned bad in the international community, specially if there was enormous collateral damage as in the last Gulf war. (formerly classified CIA estimates >210,000 Iraqi dead).
One other point that hasn't been raised much: Bureaucracy and the inefficiencies and unknowns associated with it. Modern military communities operate on a need-to-know basis. The GAO has estimated that even the most modern military power is subject to foul-ups: $$hundreds of millions worth of Pentagon inventory goes "missing" each year. Iraq's military, specially since it was decimated 12 years back...could easily be afflicted by similar problems. There have to be disparities in whats been destroyed, what exists, what doesn't etc. I don't believe in an instant that Saddam's record keeping is anywhere near as good as ours...and the we have plenty of bureaucratic problems. By saying this I am not giving Saddam an "out"...this is a problem endemic in large organizations where secrecy and 'need-to-know' protocols are the order of the day.
SDW...I am just thinking out loud here....Pull this post apart...I am just trying to make sense of what is obviously a game of smoke and mirrors being played by both sides.
<strong>Since his statement to the UN said Iraq has no WMD, then no matter what he declares, he is now in breach or 1441. This does not make war inevitable. It does probably make regime change probable, but not certain, though whether through internal change, exile or war is debatable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, so I got into this thread late, and ignore me if we've moved past this issue, but:
All the talk of international law and U.S. obligations to the U.N. is a crock of shit. It matters not if the U.S. has signed a treaty on a matter. Treaties can and have been broken in the past.
No matter how many documents you point to that show some existence of international law, it means absolutely nothing because international law has no enforcement mechanism. The only reason law works domestically is because the police are there to enforce it. There is no international police.
As long as Bush feels that he needs to pursue war in Iraq, he will do it, regardless of the actions of other members of the international community. Sure, it'd be nice and happy if we could all agree, but as long as the rest of the world lacks the power to stop the U.S. from acting, the U.S. can and will act unilaterally.
I'm not saying war is good or necessary, I'm just saying that it's inevitable.
All the talk of international law and U.S. obligations to the U.N. is a crock of shit. It matters not if the U.S. has signed a treaty on a matter. Treaties can and have been broken in the past. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Laws are broken all the time, that's true. All I ask is that you go read Article VI of the U.S. Constitution before you repeat these statements.
Laws are broken all the time, that's true. All I ask is that you go read Article VI of the U.S. Constitution before you repeat these statements.
Cheers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are you talking about? All Article VI says is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land within the United States.
Maybe you're referring to this: 'and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States.' Well, all that means is that as long as the U.S. remains party to a treaty, they will fulfill there obligations to it. The U.S. can remove itself from a treaty under 'the authority of the United States' if it so chooses.
Yes, the U.N. and international cooperation are nice and all, but you're not seeing the U.N. for what it is: a grouping of sovereign nation-states acting for mutual benefit. When the U.S. or any nation-state decides that it's in their best interests not to use the U.N., they'll act outside it.
Alliances only work when they're not needed. It's the sad truth of international relations.
Well, all that means is that as long as the U.S. remains party to a treaty, they will fulfill there obligations to it. The U.S. can remove itself from a treaty under 'the authority of the United States' if it so chooses. </strong><hr></blockquote>
If we're going to pull out of the U.N. Charter then do it. We do not have the authority to sign a treaty and choose at random when and where we'll support it. That's what the Constitution says.
You don't like it, go live somewhere without the U.S. Constitution (yes, I see that you're in London, that's the joke.)
How very reasonable of you. Had you come out and said what you did in your last post, I would have a different attitude towards you. I do have to take issue with your civilian casualty estimates. I think that is TOTALLY bogus. 210,000 for the first Gulf War? Is that what you said? Come on. You cannot believe that. It's just not possible.
And I'm sorry, but now you are backpedaling. Your consistent line has been that since the inspectors haven't found anything, nothing is there. Now you are saying it IS there, but they haven't found it. Seems to me the inspections aren't going to find anything. They are NOT effective. Then, you say that Saddam is hiding them outside the country. Possible. But, doesn't that mean he is in serious material breach? That it does, SJO!
Now, wait. Of course, the inspectors HAVE found chemical warheads, which they dismissed as "forgotten". Please. Do the math. They had them. They didn't delcare them in the declaration. The UN found them. Game over. Material Breach. "Serious consequences" will follow according 1441. Since we have tried years of sanctions, inspections, limited military strikes, even foreign leaders pleading with the man personally to disarm and fess up, one can only conclude that military action must be used.
The democrats (and France ) have said "war is a last resort". I agree. Really, I do. But here is the thing: We are "there". We HAVE tried everyhting else. Pelosi says we should have a diplomatic solution. What will that be? Haven't we tried that? France says more inspectons are needed. Why? For what purpose? We know he has the stuff (unless you will take the ridiculous step of saying Powell and company are flat-out lying). We know Saddam is deceiving. We know he isn't going to give it up after the last twelve years.
I ask you: What possible other option is there at this point? What good are inspections? They aren't going to prevent this man from doing anything. They won't find anything.
One administration member said it best: "Anyone who can possibly be convinced to take action HAS been convinced". In other words, only hopless, irresponsible head-in-the-sand liberals (like those in France, apparently) argue otherwise.
Of course, the inspectors HAVE found chemical warheads, which they dismissed as "forgotten". Please. Do the math. They had them. They didn't delcare them in the declaration. The UN found them. Game over. Material Breach. "Serious consequences" will follow according 1441. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you so blind that you can't see that it wasn't a material breach? Not even Blix considered it so. Why do YOU decide what's a material breach? That's assinine. I know you're not so full of yourself that you actually believe you decide what a material breach would be, or what "serious consequences" would be either. You CAN'T be that self-absorbed, can you?
Are you lacking something upstairs? If no one knows Iraq did it and it's attributed to militant islamists, how is Saddam going to have "The love, adoration and trust of many Arabs" because of an act no one knew he did?!?!?!?!
If no one knows Iraq did it and it's attributed to militant islamists, how is Saddam going to have "The love, adoration and trust of many Arabs" because of an act no one knew he did?!?!?!?!</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote] The fuel-air bombs used in Afaganistan would be quite effective in neutralizing many chemical/biological weapons as the tend to burn extremely hot and suck air into the explosion.<hr></blockquote>
You are assuming precision bombing.
You also assume that the bomber crews know to the nearest square yard where to aim that 'smart bomb'.
You therefore are assuming that US intelligence knows precisely the locations of the alleged WMD.
If we have the intelligence, then share it with the inspectors, dammit.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
[/i]So which is it? Iraqi or Iranian? The defence report was just that, a report. I'm sure there were many other reports claiming the exact oposite, that it was Iraqi gas that killed the Kurds.
Comments
The love, adoration and trust of many Arabs?
You do realize that the main one of Saddam's driving political goals is wholly contrary to that of radical islamic groups.
Indeed. He wouldn't mind if someone else got the blame (though in the Bush Whitehouse that's probably not going to happen). I do believe one of his faults is what was one of our faults through the Cold War: the enemy of his enemy is his friend. So if both would like the US out of the way, he's willing to bolige some fundamental Uslam. He's certainly acting friendly to the radicals, building new Mosquaes and according to Powell's report, harboring terrorists.
Ps: I don't watch Fox news. I'm not a "conservative" in the political sense like you imply.
Only significant terrorist incident in 2000 was the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. 17 dead. Apart from India/Pakistan nastiness, and Palestinian/Israeli stuff, no other islamic trouble that can be attributed to Al Qaeda.
<a href="http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/chrono2000.htm"; target="_blank">http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/chrono2000.htm</A>;
Prior to 9/11 in 2001, plane hijack in Yemen with US ambassador on board, all hostages released. Letter bomb to american doctor in Saudi Arabia. Thats it pre-9/11.
<a href="http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/chrono2001.htm"; target="_blank">http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/chrono2001.htm</A>;
The following incidents occured between 9/11/2001 and 12/01/2002:
French tanker in Yemen, American diplomat Foley killed in Jordan, multiple attacks on churches in Pakistan, synagogue truck bomb in Tunisia, car bomb in Israeli resort hotel in Mombasa, shoulder fired SAM attack on Israeli plane in Mombasa, Bali nightclub, random shootings of American servicement in Kuwait and Afghanistan.
All invading Afghanistan did was move Al Qaeda to another country. Do you really think letting a bunch of tribal warlords whom you just bought off with CIA money was really going to effectively deal with Al Qaeda.
<strong>Is Saddam Hussein completely stupid, or what?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No one ever accused Saddam of being bright.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
In 1991 his military was crushed. The same thing will happen again this time round. He must have his head buried deep in the desert sand if he honestly thinks he's going to be any contest to US forces.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but he realizes that if he puts out enough lies and stalls long enough, the anti-bush camp will use the time to try and turn western public opinion against war and thereby avoid war. Delay is in his best interests.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Doesn't he want to stay on as President of Iraq? He could do just that, if he declared those weapons as requested, so the numbers matched those of what Powell stated this morning.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
See above. Delay works in his advantage to stay in power.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Or is war going to happen by default, no matter what he declares?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since his statement to the UN said Iraq has no WMD, then no matter what he declares, he is now in breach or 1441. This does not make war inevitable. It does probably make regime change probable, but not certain, though whether through internal change, exile or war is debatable.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
If the weapons are there, to not declare them suggests the man is either plain stupid, or he is a victim that same old "avoiding loss of face no matter what the cost" syndrone. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Or that he is hoping he delays will work and give time for anti-Bush types to sway public opinion against war and therefore in his mind, against regime change.
You want to know what Pakistan is like--imagine Afghanistan with nuclear capability. The northern part of the country is tribal land with almost no connection to the central govt. The previous Afghan/Russian war has seriously destabilized the area, with any number of weapons flowing into an area where there are traditionally a large number of gun manufacturers anyway (copying weapons as they have since the British got their asses kicked up there). When I was in Peshawar about 10 years ago, you could for a few bucks fire an anti-tank gun a the side of a hill, or try to buy a shoulder fired rocket. Everyone was heavily armed, and everyone did what they wanted. Afghans crossed the border freely and it was even worse away from larger towns.
The central government is even worse. They (the ISI), along with Bin Laden were financing the Taliban. They also freely export weapons technology. Where do you think North Korea got their nuclear capability from. Pakistan didn't get all those missiles for free.
<strong>
I don't know about you but my skills as a mind reader sucks. However, looking at evidence as brought up, he is hidning something. That fact cannot be denied. Are you willing to stake your security or the security of his neighboring nations that it is not that bad?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing I have heard makes any sense, nothing seems to add up. I have such a headache now.
British Intelligence MI5 and MI6, and the NSC, NSA, CIA are all saying (in the UK press anyway) that the link from Saddam Hussein to al'Qaida is not true. It seems that all parties are lying, in the ongoing PR battle.
Whatever. It's all academic anyway. We are going to bomb the living sh*t out of those people, no matter what. The decisions were made months back, chemical weapons or none, nukes or none, bio-weapons or none, inspectors or not, UN mandate or not. Iraq's infrastructure is going to be destroyed, as in the last Gulf War. Saddam, and his scumbag henchpersons, just like the last time, will survive, somehow. Thousands of regular people, like the last time, won't.
With the Administration having almost complete command over an utterly compliant US media, it is impossible to voice an alternative viewpoint against the clamor of the "go kill the towel-heads" masses.
It is frustrating in the absolute, and I am almost feeling like just giving up, kidding myself, and going with what Bush and company tells us. It would make life so much easier.
[quote]If Iraq has all these chemical and biological weapons as alleged, then they must be extremely well hidden, because the inspections aren't coming up with anything. <hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Yes, the inspectors are not a joke....not at all! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
After all, if there is something there, they'll find it. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
That is the single weakest thing you have ever posted.
How can ANYONE here actually argue that Saddam doesn't have WOMD? Please. At least admit he has them. Then your opposition would at least be halfway reasonable. Oh, we'd still disagree. But at least you'd have some self-respect then.
SJO: <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Yes, the inspectors are not a joke....not at all! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
After all, if there is something there, they'll find it. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
That is the single weakest thing you have ever posted.<hr></blockquote>
SDW....I just posted a long, long reply to your post a few hours back but the server was down for maintenance and I lost the whole thing! grrr....sheeesh. I won't try to rewrite it, I am way too tired.
Anyway..what I meant to say in that first statement was that ..yes...if the inspectors were given prime intelligence and arrived at the relevant locations without prior warning, then the contraband, if there, would probably be uncovered. But so far, even given intel..they have found absolutely nothing..even analysing air, soil, water, floor and wall scrapings etc etc...in some 300 locations now. Either they are getting lousy intelligence or there really is nothing to be found...or the whole lot has been moved. I completely agree with you in that it is so easy to conceal weapons in a country of 170,000 square miles, much of it very sparsely populated, large areas uninhabited and remote. And....if Saddam Hussein really has these WMD...then they are probably hidden extremely well...after all they have had 4 years without supervision to dispose of and/or hide them.
[quote]How can ANYONE here actually argue that Saddam doesn't have WOMD? Please. At least admit he has them. Then your opposition would at least be halfway reasonable. Oh, we'd still disagree. But at least you'd have some self-respect then.[/qb]<hr></blockquote>
Again..I never claimed he doesn't have this stuff. I am sure he does. Most people are. But...going to war over it could make a dodgy situation extremely nasty. I am very worried about what may happen in the event of the bombs falling, and our troops are in the thick of it. Saddam is not going to get into a desert brawl..he knows he stands no chance there...he got soundly licked in 1991...so he will take the battle to the streets of Baghdad and other cities. It may easily become a nasty guerilla war where each city block is gained after fierce fighting...and...I am sure our troops are better trained and equipped, but the Iraqis are on their home turf and know the area...which is a huge advantage in guerilla warfare. Then..there is the probability that Saddam *may* have stashed chemical weapons in houses, apartment blocks, hotels, basements, hospitals, mosques, churches, you name it. War, with its falling bombs, grenades, fires and chaos has a nasty habit of turning a "contained" situation into something where all hell breaks loose... and barrels and canisters of VX (a few gallons could kill thousands) which could be literally *anywhere* in Baghdad etc...hit by a bomb could result in a total disaster.
The other possibility mentioned in the BBC and CNN recently was Saddam, on hearing about Bush's aggressive stance, removing all his banned weaponry from Iraq's territory and moving it clandestinely across the borders of eastern Jordan and Saudi Arabia, western Iran and southeast Syria. This would be so easy to do (bio. and chem. weapons are compact and easily transported in private trucks or cars). The Iraqis have been smug re. access to sites, haven't blocked access to the inspectors one bit....presumably because they *know* the inspectors...no matter how long and hard they look, are not gonna find zip.
Then what: we go to war...obviously at some point we will win the fighting part...but the weapons are not in Iraq. Our troops would go combing Iraq and find nothing...because Saddam has in fact told a partial truth in that "Iraq has no WMD"...(they are hidden outside the borders). Their absence would make us look pretty darned bad in the international community, specially if there was enormous collateral damage as in the last Gulf war. (formerly classified CIA estimates >210,000 Iraqi dead).
One other point that hasn't been raised much: Bureaucracy and the inefficiencies and unknowns associated with it. Modern military communities operate on a need-to-know basis. The GAO has estimated that even the most modern military power is subject to foul-ups: $$hundreds of millions worth of Pentagon inventory goes "missing" each year. Iraq's military, specially since it was decimated 12 years back...could easily be afflicted by similar problems. There have to be disparities in whats been destroyed, what exists, what doesn't etc. I don't believe in an instant that Saddam's record keeping is anywhere near as good as ours...and the we have plenty of bureaucratic problems. By saying this I am not giving Saddam an "out"...this is a problem endemic in large organizations where secrecy and 'need-to-know' protocols are the order of the day.
SDW...I am just thinking out loud here....Pull this post apart...I am just trying to make sense of what is obviously a game of smoke and mirrors being played by both sides.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>..."go kill the towel-heads" masses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry SJO, but that's offensive to towels. The new PC nomenclature is "sand-niggers", not "towel-heads".
Thanks.
<strong>Since his statement to the UN said Iraq has no WMD, then no matter what he declares, he is now in breach or 1441. This does not make war inevitable. It does probably make regime change probable, but not certain, though whether through internal change, exile or war is debatable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Noahj,
Read that and apply it in the other thread.
Thanks.
All the talk of international law and U.S. obligations to the U.N. is a crock of shit. It matters not if the U.S. has signed a treaty on a matter. Treaties can and have been broken in the past.
No matter how many documents you point to that show some existence of international law, it means absolutely nothing because international law has no enforcement mechanism. The only reason law works domestically is because the police are there to enforce it. There is no international police.
As long as Bush feels that he needs to pursue war in Iraq, he will do it, regardless of the actions of other members of the international community. Sure, it'd be nice and happy if we could all agree, but as long as the rest of the world lacks the power to stop the U.S. from acting, the U.S. can and will act unilaterally.
I'm not saying war is good or necessary, I'm just saying that it's inevitable.
<strong>
All the talk of international law and U.S. obligations to the U.N. is a crock of shit. It matters not if the U.S. has signed a treaty on a matter. Treaties can and have been broken in the past. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Laws are broken all the time, that's true. All I ask is that you go read Article VI of the U.S. Constitution before you repeat these statements.
Cheers.
<strong>
Laws are broken all the time, that's true. All I ask is that you go read Article VI of the U.S. Constitution before you repeat these statements.
Cheers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are you talking about? All Article VI says is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land within the United States.
Maybe you're referring to this: 'and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States.' Well, all that means is that as long as the U.S. remains party to a treaty, they will fulfill there obligations to it. The U.S. can remove itself from a treaty under 'the authority of the United States' if it so chooses.
Yes, the U.N. and international cooperation are nice and all, but you're not seeing the U.N. for what it is: a grouping of sovereign nation-states acting for mutual benefit. When the U.S. or any nation-state decides that it's in their best interests not to use the U.N., they'll act outside it.
Alliances only work when they're not needed. It's the sad truth of international relations.
<strong>
Well, all that means is that as long as the U.S. remains party to a treaty, they will fulfill there obligations to it. The U.S. can remove itself from a treaty under 'the authority of the United States' if it so chooses. </strong><hr></blockquote>
If we're going to pull out of the U.N. Charter then do it. We do not have the authority to sign a treaty and choose at random when and where we'll support it. That's what the Constitution says.
You don't like it, go live somewhere without the U.S. Constitution (yes, I see that you're in London, that's the joke.)
How very reasonable of you. Had you come out and said what you did in your last post, I would have a different attitude towards you. I do have to take issue with your civilian casualty estimates. I think that is TOTALLY bogus. 210,000 for the first Gulf War? Is that what you said? Come on. You cannot believe that. It's just not possible.
And I'm sorry, but now you are backpedaling. Your consistent line has been that since the inspectors haven't found anything, nothing is there. Now you are saying it IS there, but they haven't found it. Seems to me the inspections aren't going to find anything. They are NOT effective. Then, you say that Saddam is hiding them outside the country. Possible. But, doesn't that mean he is in serious material breach? That it does, SJO!
Now, wait. Of course, the inspectors HAVE found chemical warheads, which they dismissed as "forgotten". Please. Do the math. They had them. They didn't delcare them in the declaration. The UN found them. Game over. Material Breach. "Serious consequences" will follow according 1441. Since we have tried years of sanctions, inspections, limited military strikes, even foreign leaders pleading with the man personally to disarm and fess up, one can only conclude that military action must be used.
The democrats (and France
I ask you: What possible other option is there at this point? What good are inspections? They aren't going to prevent this man from doing anything. They won't find anything.
One administration member said it best: "Anyone who can possibly be convinced to take action HAS been convinced". In other words, only hopless, irresponsible head-in-the-sand liberals (like those in France, apparently) argue otherwise.
There is NO other option.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
Of course, the inspectors HAVE found chemical warheads, which they dismissed as "forgotten". Please. Do the math. They had them. They didn't delcare them in the declaration. The UN found them. Game over. Material Breach. "Serious consequences" will follow according 1441. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you so blind that you can't see that it wasn't a material breach? Not even Blix considered it so. Why do YOU decide what's a material breach? That's assinine. I know you're not so full of yourself that you actually believe you decide what a material breach would be, or what "serious consequences" would be either. You CAN'T be that self-absorbed, can you?
<strong>And the benefit for Saddam would be...?
The love, adoration and trust of many Arabs?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you lacking something upstairs? If no one knows Iraq did it and it's attributed to militant islamists, how is Saddam going to have "The love, adoration and trust of many Arabs" because of an act no one knew he did?!?!?!?!
<strong>
If no one knows Iraq did it and it's attributed to militant islamists, how is Saddam going to have "The love, adoration and trust of many Arabs" because of an act no one knew he did?!?!?!?!</strong><hr></blockquote>
The internet? (shrugs shoulders and walks off...)
The reference to gassing the Kurds, often cited by the Bush admin:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html"; target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html</a>;
The mobile labs reference: Hans Blix says "no evidence".
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,889135,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,889135,00.html</a>;
[quote] The fuel-air bombs used in Afaganistan would be quite effective in neutralizing many chemical/biological weapons as the tend to burn extremely hot and suck air into the explosion.<hr></blockquote>
You are assuming precision bombing.
You also assume that the bomber crews know to the nearest square yard where to aim that 'smart bomb'.
You therefore are assuming that US intelligence knows precisely the locations of the alleged WMD.
If we have the intelligence, then share it with the inspectors, dammit.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
[/i]So which is it? Iraqi or Iranian? The defence report was just that, a report. I'm sure there were many other reports claiming the exact oposite, that it was Iraqi gas that killed the Kurds.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: Outsider ]</p>