BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


For and Against: War with Iraq

 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
06:51 / 10.09.02
Against: this is a politically and economically motivated attack, rather than the moral and practical imperative we are being sold. There is no demonstrated link between Iraq and Bin Laden's group and 9/11.

For: Saddam Hussein is one of the world's most disgraceful and repugnant dictators. What's horrible is that we left him in place so long. It is already acknowledged that he used chemical weapons, and sought to develop more. He is attempting to develop nuclear weapons now.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
08:38 / 10.09.02
against: there has still been no evidence presented to back up the US/UK claims. "I'll tell you this, if we can substantiate that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capacity, we would not be standing alone. We would be able to get Security Council acquiescence on military action and we would be able to build a viable coalition with, you know, depth throughout the international community to confront Saddam Hussein." - scott ritter, senior UN weapons inspector in iraq for seven years.

against: if the proposed assault goes according to (recent) type, land engagement will be preceded by a powell-doctrine powered aerial blitz - in afghanistan, this meant smart bombs, cluster bombs (doubling as mines) and eventually, carpet bombing. for the allies, this is a low-risk form of warfare. for the inhabitants of iraq, it is wildly inaccurate. civilian casualties can be expected to soar - even if one believes an attack on the iraqi military is legitimate.

against: an attack without the support of the UN further undercuts its role in world politics, and pushes it ever closer to being an outdated ideal in an age of neo-colonialism and empire-building.

against: the Arab league is opposed to the attack. by disregarding its wishes, the US/UK likewise show themselves contemptuous of those regimes in the region who will actually have to live with the fall-out of their actions.

against: the likely target for a desperate, defiant counterblast by hussein (without the resources to strike back at europe or america) is israel. israel is a nuclear power, and has refused to rule the option out (angering the bulk of other arab states). an already dangerously unbalanced middle east could - no pun intended - explode.

against: as diplomacy is increasingly rejected by the allies, so it must be by those who oppose their objectives. there is no reason to attempt peaceful solutions if you're damned whatever you do - therefore terrorism is the natural response - a guerrilla war fought on a global scale.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
08:57 / 10.09.02
regarding the nuclear claims, scott ritter has the following to say:

"Of the four categories, nuclear is the one that was most thoroughly eradicated; two aspects of the program, weaponization and enrichment. Enrichment is 100 percent eradicated. We destroyed the facilities. We destroyed the means of production. And of all the aspects of weapons of mass destruction, this is the one that's most difficult to reconstitute. It would require a major reacquisition of technology, almost all of which is controlled technology, very difficult to obtain even under the most favorable of circumstances, especially not easy when you have economic sanctions and the entire world's collective intelligence apparatus looking at you. And then you'd have to rebuild the facilities, which again is eminently detectable, not something that's done underground or in a basement or in a cave. And again, void of any data or facts that show Iraq has done this, don't need to worry about enrichment."

as for bio-chem and etc:

"The United States provided the Government of Iraq with ‘dual use’ licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological, and missile- system programs, including: chemical warfare agent precursors; chemical warfare agent production facility plans and technical drawings (provided as pesticide production facility plans); chemical warhead filling equipment; biological warfare related materials; missile fabrication equipment; and, missile-system guidance equipment", to quote the conclusions of a 1994 report conducted by the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs ("U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War").

likewise:

"The U.S. also directly supplied Iraq with biological weapons. Author William Blum writes that according to a 1994 Senate Committee Report, "From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." (Counterpunch, 8/20/02)

The deadly mix included anthrax, botulism, and E. coli bacteria. Blum adds that the Senate Report stated, "these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program." (znet.org)

and, regarding his last use of chemical weapons, the New York Times recently addressed the case:

The Times ("Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas," 8/18/02) reported that, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the secret program, U.S. officials "provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war."

It's long been known that the U.S. gave Iraq satellite intelligence and other military support to prevent an Iranian victory. What's new in the Times story is the extent of U.S. involvement: "More than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA] were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq."

This Pentagon program continued even when it became clear that the Iraqi military "had integrated chemical weapons throughout their arsenal and were adding them to strike plans that American advisers either prepared or suggested."
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:00 / 10.09.02
against: the only reason UN inspectors were thrown out of iraq (after seven years and little genuine obstruction) was because the US were caught spying. they would later use the information gathered to improve their 'hit rate' in 1998's 'desert fox' attacks.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:04 / 10.09.02
against: "As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable," as the attacks of September 11 showed." - Noam Chomsky
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:15 / 10.09.02
The International Institute for Strategic Studies ("...the IISS has for over 40 years annually published The Military Balance. This is the only reliable, publicly available inventory of the world’s armed forces, rebel groups and organised non-state armed groups. We have drawn on this experience in analysing material gathered from many different sources in compiling this Dossier...") has published a report on Iraq and the surrounding issues.

From the Director's Comments:

"From the start of the inspections by UNSCOM in 1991 through to the demise of UNSCOM in 1998 Iraq practised a series of measures designed to prevent the UN inspectors from finding the full range and extent of its proscribed WMD and missile programmes."

"Iraq has probably retained a few hundred tonnes of mustard and precursors for a few hundred tonnes of sarin/cyclosarin and perhaps similar amounts of VX from pre-1991 stocks."

"The retention of WMD capacities by Iraq is self-evidently the core objective of the regime, for it has sacrificed all other domestic and foreign policy goals to this singular aim."

"Wait and the threat will grow; strike and the threat may be used. Clearly, governments have a pressing duty to develop early a strategy to deal comprehensively with this unique international problem."


Iraq is in breach of a number of UN resolutions - so if the UN is to retain any credibility, some form of action is required.

However...does that mean war?

There's also an interesting article about America's right to go to war with Iraq.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:09 / 10.09.02
If *the USA* goes to war with Iraq, without the UN's sanction but with the UN equally powerless to stop it, then the UN is effectively broken as a means of keeping the peace through diplomacy - it is unable to exert influence even on permanent members of its security council.

If the USA goes to war with Iraq with the backing of the UN, the Arab nations might inquire why, after a decade of causing massive hardship through sanctions, the UN has decided to give Iraq another good kicking on the off chance that they might at some point develop technologies of mass destruction usable against the US, whilst Israel, which already has weapons of mass destruction, is continuing to flout UN resolutions utterly unpunished in a way that is leading to the actual death of Palestinians on a daily basis. IN effect, the UN's credibility as anything other than a ratifier of motions favouring the US is shot.

Great Britain's ability to engage in diplomacy on behalf of the US wiht the Arab nations without generating the same level of animosity will be entirely shot to pieces either way.

Any government, democratic or not, set up after Saddam has been deposed will be tarred, rightly or wrongly, as a US puppet government by the rest of the Arab nations (especially as most of the potential leaders have been in exile in the west for a decade or more), and would struggle to survive. Iran, currently attempting to liberalise, secularise and democratise, will probably be pushed back into theocracy through the threat of constant instability cause by a US puppet government in Iraq.

Of course, the consequences of *not* attacking are now looking equally apalling. The US has created an impossible situation, near as I can tell.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
13:37 / 10.09.02
Putting on my Devil's Advocate horns n' tail -

against: there has still been no evidence presented to back up the US/UK claims.

Saddam has made it impossible for weapons inspectors to do a credible job in the past, indicating that he had something to hide then. Why is it any different now?

against: if the proposed assault goes according to (recent) type, land engagement will be preceded by a powell-doctrine powered aerial blitz

Aerial ordnance is far more accurate now than it was in the previous gulf war. Unfortunately, there exists no reliable account of civilian casualties in the Afghanistan conflict. What we do know is, the irregular nature of the Taliban and allied forces led to misinformation about their location (and in some cases, the U.S. was fed purposefully erroneous information by opportunistic "allies') and thus contributed to the likelihood of people being killed who we did not want to kill. The Iraqi army is a regular, uniformed army. We wouldn't put it past Saddam to hide crucial weapons making facilities in civilian location, but that's indicative of his lack of regard for casualties, not ours.

against: an attack without the support of the UN further undercuts its role in world politics, and pushes it ever closer to being an outdated ideal in an age of neo-colonialism and empire-building.

How can an "ideal" be outdated? The "ideal" of the UN is not in question. It's the reality of what goes on there that's the problem.

against: the Arab league is opposed to the attack. by disregarding its wishes, the US/UK likewise show themselves contemptuous of those regimes in the region who will actually have to live with the fall-out of their actions.

Who makes up the Arab league? The representatives of repressive dictatorships. We should be contemptuous of their wishes. Perhaps stability in the Middle East is a bad thing, for the world, as well as the inhabitants of that region. The status quo is terror. Perhaps a schism between the U.S. and the Saudis is a good thing.

against: the likely target for a desperate, defiant counterblast by hussein (without the resources to strike back at europe or america) is israel. israel is a nuclear power, and has refused to rule the option out (angering the bulk of other arab states). an already dangerously unbalanced middle east could - no pun intended - explode.

If Iraq has the capability to strike at Israel using Weapons of Mass Destruction, then they do indeed have these weapons and are therefore a legitimate target for pre-emptive action. In any case, Israel is unlikely to result to nuclear retaliation. Publicly ruling out nuclear retaliation would take away any benefit gained (deterrence) from having nuclear weapons in the first place.

against: as diplomacy is increasingly rejected by the allies, so it must be by those who oppose their objectives. there is no reason to attempt peaceful solutions if you're damned whatever you do - therefore terrorism is the natural response - a guerrilla war fought on a global scale.

Iraq hasn't attempted any peaceful solutions. They've no credibility that they can live up to the terms of a peaceful situation.
 
 
invisible_al
13:39 / 10.09.02
For: Saddam Hussein continues to oppress the Iraqi people, torturing and imprisoning anyone who gets in his way. He has cheerfully attempted to destroy the ecosystem in the south of his country because the swamps and marshland provided a base for his oppenents to hide in. He has demonstrated his willingness to use chemical weapons against his opponents in his attacks on the Kurds in the north.
He has not be brought to book for his invasion of Kuwait and the ecological vandalism that occured during the retreat from Kuwait. In short he and the ruling clique of Iraq are a menace and should have been dealt with a long time ago.

Against: The USA appears to have no plan on dealing with Iraq apart from 'Lets kick their ass'. They want a regime change, to what precisesly we have no idea. I've heard the 'Iraqi opposition movement' described as the worst sort of corrupt opportunists by an unamed former UK ambassador in a Guardian article. The US has also managed to piss away much of the diplomatic slack that the world was prepared to grant them after september 11th. They do not have the support of the Arab world, they don't even have the support fo most of Europe.
I'm also not confident of them successfully 'kicking ass' anyway, the general in charge of the 'opposition' in a recent wargame by the US army resigned after being told to play dumb and allow the military its propaganda victory.

In short I'd really like Saddam Hussein out but am in no way confident of the US's ability to do so without knocking the conutry into the stone age and sending the middle east into meltdown. Arse in a word.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
13:40 / 10.09.02
The US has created an impossible situation, near as I can tell.

You're absolutely right, and the reason is that the Bush Admin. knows only one tactic in negotiation: brinksmanship. I put the blame squarely on domestic opposition (the Democrats) for making this means of "dialogue" effective. They just rolled over and played dead whenever Bush pushed, and now he thinks that he can use this tactic in the international arena. And hey, it's worked for him with Russia. Why not Iraq?
 
 
autopilot disengaged
16:09 / 10.09.02
t.o.d.d.:

has Saddam made examination impossible? can you back this up? a lot of the material i'm reading - often stemming from people on the ground, like Ritter - suggests the UN inspecton teams did a pretty thorough job. likewise, do you refute the claim the US abused the inspection process to spy?

again, if Ritter is correct, Saddam is not so close to obtaining nuclear capability as a hysterical media is suggesting. now - this does not mean the international community shouldn't do something about Iraq's breaches of UN resolutions, but it does remove the need for immediate, catastrophic violence. 'action' can take many forms, and if we have some breathing space, maybe we can start to approach the problem constructively. we can also work multilaterally - meaning all breaches of the rules are treated with the same seriousness.

as for aerial ordenance being more accurste... i agree smart bombs are improving, but Afghanistan saw the resurrection of carpet bombing - not, by anyone's standards, a pinpoint affair (nor meant to be). add to the mix cluster bombs, which leave unexploded bomblets scattered around, and the occasional daisy-cutter... bear in mind smart bombs represent a tiny fraction of weapons used, even as recently as Afghanistan - and even so, it was a smart bomb that created that campaign's first SNAFU - demolishing a UN building, and killing four.

i don't expect Iraq to employ WMD against Israel, by the way - thinking more of some token scud attacks, as last time. remember Saddam's military strength is estimated to be a third of what it was first time round, and he hasn't been able to re-arm in the meanwhile.

whether Iraq has attempted a peaceful solution kind of rests on whether the arms inspectors were genuinely misled, and whether Hussein's - multiple - offers to negotiate were genuine.

i'm going to see if i can unearth any compelling evidence or primary sources to support my basic thrust. it'd be good if you could do the same.

but, before i do - as to this notion EvilSaddam has one aim only - the protection of his beloved MassDestruct program:

[b]"We also know if we are listening to people like Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck that the Government of Iraq (GOI) has cooperated fully in the implementation of the Oil-For-Food program—this despite the humiliation of having to ask for permission whenever they want to buy something, despite the frustration of having to go through a cumbersome foreign bureaucracy just to spend their own money, and despite having to pay the salaries and living expenses of this imposed bureaucracy. They have not redirected funds, they have not misused goods, and they have not intentionally allowed humanitarian items to sit, unused, while people suffered. We also know, if we have read a 1998 UN Food and Agriculture (FAO) report that the GOI established a national system of food rationing after the Gulf War. It did so in the face of sudden and catastrophic food shortages brought on by the international economic embargo. By doing so, it averted catastrophe for its people. According to the FAO, "widespread starvation was avoided through an effective public rationing system, which provided minimum quantities of food to the population." It was this same system upon which the UN piggybacked in implementing the Oil-For-Food program. The UN has used this system as a model for developing countries in other parts of the world."[/b] (David Smith-Ferri)
 
 
autopilot disengaged
16:14 / 10.09.02
by the way, Denis Halliday was the former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, and Hans von Sponeck ran the Oil-for-Food program (before resigning in protest).
 
 
autopilot disengaged
16:37 / 10.09.02
from CNN:

SWEENEY: But didn't the United Nations present a report last year saying they believed there were weapons?

RITTER: No, the U.N. presented a report saying they could not account for everything.

SWEENEY: But it is hard to account if you cannot get into the country.

RITTER: That's right. Then why did the United States pick up the phone in December 1998 and order the inspectors out -- let's remember Saddam Hussein didn't kick the inspectors out. The U.S. ordered the inspectors out 48 hours before they initiated Operation Desert Fox -- military action that didn't have the support of the U.N. Security Council and which used information gathered by the inspectors, to target Iraq.

how about that for a breach?

and this is a Primary Source talking - on a Major Network.

he also says:

SWEENEY: How much access did you get to the weapons inspection sites?

RITTER: One-hundred percent. Every site we wanted to get to, we eventually got to. There was some obstruction, it wasn't pretty, but we got there.


this is the man who ran the UN arms inspection team. is he lying? if so, why?
 
 
nutella23
17:54 / 10.09.02
Might want to check out this article:

http://www.sundayherald.com/print27572

Sunday Herald--08 September 2002

How did Iraq get its weapons? We sold them
by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot

The US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs--which oversees American exports policy--reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which can cause gas gangrene.

Classified US Defence Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf War. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf War, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis--the micro-organism that causes anthrax--were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Baghdad went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programmes.'

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filtering equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment.'

Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programmes.'

Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record'.

Did you ever get the feeling you'd been cheated?
 
 
Peach Pie
19:06 / 10.09.02
against: haven't Iraqi civilians suffered enough?
 
 
Ray Fawkes
19:49 / 10.09.02
Hawkish as I normally am, I say:

Against: America's International cache is rapidly falling by the wayside as their policies impede several potential international initiatives (i.e. the Kyoto Accord, the ICC) while the transfer of violent intent from Afghanistan to Iraq is causing some understandable hysteria of a "thin end of the wedge" bent. America is not prepared to colonize Iraq, so their only acceptable goal is the destruction of Hussein's regime, imposition of "friendly" rule (immediately earning the emnity of surrounding territories...besides, look where "friendlies" got us in the Afghanistan/Russia conflict), and withdrawal from territories.

In short: armed, open conflict in Iraq would constitute a diplomatic disaster for America and an environmental and civillian disaster for Iraq.

I believe that the only campaign that can possibly bring about an acceptable outcome in Iraq would be one of aggressive espionage and pinpoint assassination. This is not the sort of campaign the Bush administration is talking about engaging in.
 
 
Jackie Susann
08:02 / 11.09.02
"Iraq is in breach of a number of UN resolutions - so if the UN is to retain any credibility, some form of action is required."

Are you serious? And if so, will the UN be taking on the US next?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:14 / 11.09.02
I didn't say it was a particularly good argument. It's being deployed, is all. You do realise I'm doing this to get the arguments out and look at them, not because I'm sitting at home waiting for the first long box to drop? I was talking to a friend a couple of days ago, and I was perturbed to discover that he wasn't sure how he felt about this. So I thought, okay, let's look at it.
 
 
angel
11:54 / 11.09.02
Something that bothers me intensely is the way that there have been so many contradictory "reports" published over the last few days. Just one example is that within days of each other there was one that said something like "yes, Saddam could have nulcear capability within x months" and another said "oh no, everything was destroyed during desert storm, Saddam couldn't possibly cause any trouble".

Now I know this to be evidence that the right of everyman to "feedom of speech" is working, but how the hell can people (including me) make an informed decision without reading absolutely everything published, which quite frankly I don't have time to do. And this bothers me deeply, as it throws the shadow of doubt upon all arguements and statements, because how do I know which one - or which part of any report - is true? How can you see through the smokescreen of propaganda that both sides are emitting? Is there any way of getting to a nugget of truth?

I am anti-war, I don't think that it solves problems and is not the way I want to see the world built, but I also need to know that I am making the best, most informed choices possible given present circumstances.

If Saddam Hussain is responsible for the things that are attributed to him, then I agree that he should be removed, for the safety and well-being of his people than any greater world dominating purpose, but how will carpet bombing his country - killing many thousands of civilians who may or may not support his regime - do any good what so ever?

< apologies if I haven't posted this in the right forum - I just needed to express this as it is something I have been thinking about for the past few days >
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
12:32 / 11.09.02
The problem with the 'Saddam could have a nuclear weapon in x months' argument is that, when you read the newspaper report it becomes clear that, if we were able to get fissile material, Barbelith could have a nuclear weapon in x months.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
13:54 / 11.09.02
Where would we keep it?
 
 
angel
14:24 / 11.09.02
Under the carpet with the dragon and the rest of are wicked arsenal.
 
 
invisible_al
14:44 / 11.09.02
Global Security's For and Against War with Iraq list.
Not particularly biased and seems to hit quite a few points on either side of the argument.
 
 
Harold Washington died for you
14:49 / 11.09.02
Saddam is a special case. He has attacked neighboring countires three times and used chemical weapons on his own citizens. Pakistan, North Korea and China are also deveolping weapons of mass destruction but even the most rabid hawks in the US government are not talking about invading those countries.

I do not want to see another "children's crusade" but I want to see Saddam with his very own nuke even less. If he lets the UN inspectors back in I will be content to focus on the football season and let the diplomats work this shit out in peace.
 
 
nutella23
15:45 / 11.09.02
OK, but...two things:

1)Haven't Bush and Cheney already indicated that they aren't interested in sending inspectors back in? (ie. they don't want to wait any longer and they don't think inspections will do any good) &

2)Why the division over inspectors within the administration (Colin Powell seems to be for inspections) and within the military (Why was Anthony Zinni speaking out against invasion at the same time Cheney was stumping for it?)

Can anyone provide a sound explanation?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:59 / 11.09.02
Pakistan, North Korea and China all *have* weapons of mass destruction. If the aim is to keep such weapons out of the hands of unstable states, then I look forward to the invasions.
 
 
Baz Auckland
18:49 / 11.09.02
Against: There is no real opposition in Iraq. If Saddam is killed (or hides out with Bin Laden somewhere) who will take his place? There's probably enough oil in Iraq for the US to make the effort to stick in a stable government, but look what happened to Iran in the 70s to the US-supported dictator.
 
 
some guy
11:55 / 12.09.02
Pakistan, North Korea and China all *have* weapons of mass destruction. If the aim is to keep such weapons out of the hands of unstable states, then I look forward to the invasions.

Why do you think China is unstable?
 
 
grant
15:03 / 12.09.02
Try stationing a ship at Taiwan....
 
 
MJ-12
15:32 / 12.09.02
Against: Since the end of Desert Storm SH has been well behaved with respect to any neighbors who he believes have the capacity to damage him. A wmd event against the US, with even the most tenuous connections to Iraq, would likely result in a disproportionate, and possibly utterly indiscriminate response on the part of the US. Whether or not he has wmd, or intends to acquire them is irrelevant. Unless you want to posit that lynchpin of our strategic policy for the last half-century was meaningless.
 
 
cusm
15:51 / 12.09.02
I should just note here that hostilities between US and Iraq have not stopped since Desert Storm. We patrol the "no fly" zone, Iraq shoots at us. Sometimes shoots down our planes, even. We retailiate by blowing up their air defenses. You only see this in the news once in awhile when he shoots one of ours down, but otherwise shots have been fired rather continuously for years now. Even if we're not "at war" with Iraq, we're still fighting them regardless on a daily basis.
 
 
nutella23
16:07 / 12.09.02
Anyone catch W.'s speech before the UN today? Wasn't quite what I expected. At least he's willing to work with the security council on this matter, and he did address the Palestinian situation before bringing up the subject of Iraq. I got the impression that inspectors will be sent back in very soon, although the US still demands a regime change of course. Still though, I am left feeling a bit uneasy about where this all is heading.
 
 
grant
21:10 / 12.09.02
Veering off topic: I can't help but think of Ronald Reagan and the fall of Communism. Lots of people (my parents included) believe his psycho "Empire of Evil" act scared the Russians into surrender.
 
 
sleazenation
21:37 / 12.09.02
Maybe i'm being overly pessimistic, but I'm not actually convinced the Bush administration seriously intends to enter into any meaningful diologue with all involved parties at the UN . Instead it appears as if the administration is just looking to construct a sturdy enough pretext to embark upon the invasion strategy they have already decided on.

The fine print (ie wiether this is about weapons inspections, UN resolution or axa of evil) might be bitched about - but the policy of regeme change (and giving Irag a good kicking) is going to happen. And a government friendly to the west will be installed - oil will flow and no-one will much care about the unrest and violence happening outside the capital.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
11:48 / 13.09.02
cusm We patrol the "no fly" zone, Iraq shoots at us. Sometimes shoots down our planes, even.

I didn't think Iraq had ever managed to shoot down one of our planes since the end of the Gulf War. Is there proof they have?
 
  
Add Your Reply