I'm going to throw my thoughts into the mix, simply because I disagree with a lot of what has been said, particularly by BaliBabyDoc.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The President of the United States doesn't have to be crazy to use nukes, he just has to know when and where to use them properly.
NEVER and No where . . . that's the when and where! Saddam shouldn't have chemical or biological weapons b/c they should NEVER be used. That was the point of the conventions on biological and chemical weapons. The NPT exists for the same reason. We've learned a lesson . . . these weapons CANNOT be used responsibly . . . the primary reason being they are difficult to control once released hence they tend to act as weapons against civilians NOT
legal combatants.
We don't need bunker busters. If we are so damn certain they're in a bunker or keeping their stash underground who cares? Let 'em crap in the corner and eat organic MREs (cockroaches) . . . they can stay there forever. If we really want them out then arm the natives and let them do it. If the natives aren't friendly we need to go home.
Yea thats the best way to handle the situation, ignore the problem because it doesn't directly effect us yet. Lets wait until our homeland is in direct risk from a hostile country led by someone who has no remorse, and no problems killing innocent people. If I thought Saddam had any tact, or would follow any kind of rules of war, which America follows I would have no problem with this but there is no way Saddam would only attack military targets if he was given the chance to pick and choose. Not to mention you thought we should hand over the responsibility to the civilians who aren't properly trained to protect themselves, and have been unable to take back their own country from Saddam for years. Add to it that Saddam surely has no problem killing his own people with chemical/biological weapons and you've obviously set up the perfect situation! More innocent casualties then are necessary!
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If Iraq does use WMD on US troops the sentiment will change in the country, people will want us to punish Saddam, we will want retribution for those acts.
That doesn't make sense. You break down my door and punch me in the nose. I kick you in the groin. You pull out a .44 and put a round through my chest.
You can call me a community annoyance but you have no proof I've done ANYTHING to you. But somehow you not only have the right to try and hurt me b/c I might do something to you or help someone else hurt you in the future . . . but you also reserve the right to use any means necessary to subdue me after you enter my home.
That scenario is down right medieval . . . do you wonder why we have to buy or intimidate our allies?!
You make it sound like we showed up out of no where, unprovoked and started to beat up Iraq. This is simply not the case, America was protecting people who were unable to protect themselves from a man with the ability, and the desire to control what does not belong to him. You can say that in the Gulf War America onyl had a vested interest because of the oil, which I'm sure is fairly correct and undeniable, but now we're talking about someone who wants payback by any means necessary. Not to mention the American government has said they have proof about the weapons Saddam has developed/or is in the process of developing against the sanctions placed at the end of the gulf war. You want it to be proven that the US has proof about these weapons then I don't believe you have completely given thought to the consequences of what might happen if it was released to the public.
To quote a well written article I read on kuro5hin.org the other day, if the government released to the press how the obtained proof of these weapons several things would happen. I'm going to quote the article directly:
Let's then suppose that the press push a little more for what the evidence is. USA decides to throw them a bone. They have copies of shipping records for components for WMD devices being sent into Iraq from the early 90's (this is an example - I'm not sure if they have or not in reality, but they certainly know about stuff back in '86). They tell the press this. Oh boy where do we begin as to what happens now. All of the following is the minimum impact:
-Iraq is aware shipping is being monitored
-Other 'unfriendly nations' know it is likely their shipping is being monitored
-The person who obtained the shipping information is now compromised as an agent of UKUSA intelligence agencies, and may possibly be in extreme danger
-The shipping company is now know to have weak security on confidential information, or they work with intelligence agencies, meaning they are in extreme danger as is all their property within Baghdad and other ports in unfriendly nations
-If UKUSA have access to shipping into Baghdad, they probably have many live agents working on other information gathering exercises there
-Iraq will now change their shipping conditions, so it becomes impossible for UKUSA to monitor their actions so easily.
-Other nations will secure any data they wish to hide around shipping operations
-USA intelligence agencies have to change their entire methodology for tracking shipping into ALL these countries to counter-act the changes made by those countries
(Slightly edited to be more easily read).
How exactly can you consider it medieval to occupy a country, trying to force them to disarm themselves so they can no longer be a threat to other peace loving nations, and when that request is denied using force to disarm them. If Iraq was developing for the sole purpose of self-defense, and not developing so they can support terrorist factions bent on killing every US citizen or using the weapons to again take control over other nations who cannot defend themselves against the attacks, then we wouldn't be in this perdicament. The US government is in this to protect its citizens and other possible targets by Iraq from future harm. This potential war would not be fought "because we want their power tools".
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Oh, well, I'll call Saddam up right now and tell him that BaliBabyDoc on the Internet said he shouldn't have chemical or biological weapons, so he needs to give them up RIGHT THIS SECOND!
Let's see Saddam has so many weapons that he's a danger not only to the region but the world. But he hides it so well that inspectors and billions of dollars of US hardware can't find it.
Peaceful people everywhere think militaries are either necessary evils or tools of oppression. The fact that the ones with the biggest guns get to pick the weapons is proof of the lack of morality in the enterprise. NPT matters for NK but not Israel. We're worried NK will share but there's little doubt that Israel might use theirs.
Bush shouldn't control our military b/c he's too eager to use them. He's not a reluctant warrior . . . he's an intoxicated moron with keys to the Suburban. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom knew to withold such power from an executive. The ability to wage war should be accountable to the legislature. Alas, Congress has two significant hanging gonads amongst 435 people one belongs to Hilary and the other is a racist Democrat from West Virginia.
I don't care if Saddam's program is crippled next week, next month, or next year. As long as the world is looking it will be hard for him to use them. As soon as he attempts to use them the world will rally to defeat him.
Bush has personalized this conflict but it's not Bush vs Saddam or the US vs Iraq. It should be peace versus miscreants. Right now Saddam AND Bush are disturbing the peace. And once Saddam is gone . . . Bush will still be disturbing the peace.
Yea, if we are watching him he can't use them.. the problem is he doesn't want us watching him anymore, and fairly soon we won't be able to watch him. You seem to like to ignore the fact that Saddam is bent on killing anyone who has or will potentially oppose him any way possible. He doesn't need to directly attack with the weapons he is trying to/has created. All he needs to do is hand some over to a suicidal Taliban-like faction who will do the dirty work for him. He is not there to peacefully coexist, he wants to punish the US and UK. You think he is developing weapons so he can sit at home and protect himself?
About Bush, I'm sure Bush himself isn't as peaceful as some other presidents may have been in this situation (Gore comes to mind), but that doesn't mean he is a dictator. You think that any decision he makes isn't analyzed and reported on by many people on his staff? The US wouldn't go to war because Bush had a bad day and feels like breaking something. It is a collective decision made by many intelligent people looking out for the best interest of the nation. The US hasn't gotten to where it is today because it relys on the decisions of one man in any situation.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
So you're saying that if Iraq used a WMD tomorrow and killed a large chunk of our troops in the Gulf you wouldn't be upset? You would be fine with the fact that all those Americans died?
No I'm saying don't invade Iraq then you don't have to worry about a large chunk of our troops being exposed to WMD. Maybe you're new to the forum or just plain slow. You would be hard pressed to find any post of mine where advocate aggression against another. Saddam and the US are never going to be friends. But we could be real friends to real democracy growing in Iran. We could tell the Kurds to Cry Freedom . . . granted we would have to speak softly b/c our ally, Turkey, has a tendency to gas Kurds when they get uppity. We could become a real force for peace between Israel and Palestine instead of a rubber stamp for Sharon imperialism. Regardless, the death of any person is unfortunate but I have less compassion for aggressors than defenders. I fully support US troops but I definitely oppose the current course of civilian leadership.
This post particularly bothered me because you seem to believe that if we left Iraq alone the problems will just disappear, again I reiterate the fact that walking away from a problem almost never solves it, and this is certainly one problem that when ignored will do nothing but get worse. Its obvious that Saddam can do nothing but become a more deadly threat by the day when left unchecked. We are not dealing with someone with a conscious. Perhaps you believe we should wait until it turns into another holocaust-esque situation but on a nuclear/biological/chemical warfare scale?
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
But I thought you said that Saddam didn't have any WMD. Now you are saying that we shouldn't invade so we don't have to worry about him using them on our troops.
Let's try two versions: 1) Assume Saddam has WMD. Let inspections continue for several months. If he has a lot go kick his arse (with friends), if inspectors find very little then keep looking and plan for future means of monitoring for compliance.
2) Assume Saddam has no significant/readily deployable WMD. Don't invade PERIOD.
Pretend I'm a chickenhawk cheerleader . . . the ONLY reason President Bush would take the war option would be to destroy Saddam's extensive WMD program. Hence, if Bush invades the program exists. And if the program exists it is possible Saddam will use it against US forces. In that case the US has to be prepared to use all weapons at its disposal . . . including nuclear.
Back to thinking individual . . . if the ONLY scenario under which nukes would be used is a significant chemical/biological strike against invading US forces . . . wouldn't the intelligent action be to find a different means of disarmament than unilateral invasion?
I can see where you are coming from with this, yes if we invade it would be to stop Saddam's WMD programs, I'm glad you now seem to understand it isn't related to oil anymore, you seemed to be stuck on the idea we just want the oil. You are slightly off when you interpret the situation as one where if we invade he would use his WMD arsenal against us though. You are assuming he has working warheads etc at his disposal, which would mean the US has acted too late. The idea is we can get in there and stop the programs before the are successful and Saddam has become an extremely bad threat. Even so, if they are already successful, they need to be disarmed regardless... before he gets a chance to use them. I'm in agreement that the best way to disarm Saddam would definately not be a large scale invasion. Simply put though it is not something a small elite team can accomplish simply because the US government is having an impossible time keeping track of where Saddam is keeping his weapons, and if it is necessary to have a large scale invasion similar to the gulf war to find the weapons then it should be done. This potentially puts the US soldiers at risk of being subjected to chemical and biological weapons... but its either them or the civilians Saddam would eventually target with the weapons. He isn't making the weapons to sit there and look pretty, he plans to use them regardless of whether or not its on US soldiers because of they invade his country... don't you agree?
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I'm not slow but you just seem be trying too hard to show your distaste for Bush and his actions.
We don't know all the facts that the government knows, and I doubt Bush would invade Iraq with the world against him over oil, the US has enough
sway in the oil industry as is. For all we know Iraq could pose a legitimate threat to the US and Bush is acting in our best interests.
I dislike bullies. Bush is a bully. Saddam is a bully. Saddam at least has the good taste not to pretend to be noble . . .
Well, nobody BELIEVES him. Bush may be moron enough to think he's doing the right thing. That's truly dangerous . . . there's nothing more harmful than delusional thought (fixed false belief). Saddam is a liar . . . but at least his lies make sense.
The US can never have enough sway when it comes to oil. In order to sustain our society we MUST control 1/5 to 1/4 of the world's oil reserves. It's not under ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico, or West Texas. If Bush trusts the American public he should lay it down before us (maybe he will on TUE) otherwise his case against Iraq is lightweight.
I'm really surprised you feel that this is all over control of oil. While I'm sure that is a part of it, how could you possibly think it plays a larger part then the potential use of weapons of to murder mass numbers of people by Saddam?
You also compare Saddam and Bush's roles in this. Maybe you should be reminded that while Saddam is a dictator Bush can not take any actions on his own... he needs support from congress, not to mention has more intelligent help from his advisors then Saddam could ever get. It does not matter if Bush believes he is doing the right thing, thats not his decision alone to make, although anything he does to ensure the safety of the US people could not be considered the wrong decision as the leader of the nation. Saddam on the other hand is knowling endangering the people of his country by defiantly refusing to completely comply with the UN, and secretly building chemical and biological weapons while openly challenging the US to come fight him.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Yeah . . . and your point would be . . . ? It's a BIG leap from Iraq being in material breach of 1441 . . . the Bush admin contended Saddam was in material breach essential from the beginning . . . and justification for armed onslaught. I say Bush plans for invasion are unjustified and will disturb the peace. It certainly will not establish or preserve what little stability exists in the region. If the goal is disarmament then slow AND steady works for most of the world. It has the unfortunate circumstance of being the best for Saddam as well . . . but hey that's life.
The ugly truth is that Bush has invested so much of his political capital in demonizing Saddam that he can't back down and Saddam is such a POS it's almost a certainty that he's hiding SOMETHING. Hence the unjust will act against the unruly by unlawful means. Everybody loses.
Slow and steady works for most of the world because they are not the #1 target on Saddam's list when it comes to revenge. If Saddam was to hand over weapons secretly created, which you agree he mostly likely is, to a terrorist faction... can you deny that the US would be the target of the attack? Its easy to stand on the sideline when the crosshairs aren't on you and say give them time to clean up their act. The facts are we will never find what we are looking for inspecting through the UN, Saddam would never have it. If we were even close they would just kick the inspectors out until they moved the stuff. In such a case the other nations around the world would still look down on the US for taking action, proclaiming that they still haven't found any proof. How long can the US be influenced by others decisions, while those others are obviously playing dumb to the facts?
As for nukes themselves, I think its pretty obvious that no nukes that would be of any extreme power would be used except in some sort of retaliation. If there is absolute proof that bio/chem weapons are going to be used by Saddam, then by all means do whatever it takes to ensure they are eliminated before they are used. Whether this means destroying them with conventional bombs, or the extremely unlikely low yield nukes is not for me to decide. As long as the weapons are guaranteed to be eliminated, lives will be saved and isn't that all that matters? The reality of it though, is that if there were any real plans to use nukes, it would not have been leaked to the media, especially before the US has even confirmed plans to go to war with Iraq... that just wouldn't have happened. Its possible that the government is trying to use the media to try and scare Saddam into submission. Unfortunately I don't believe that would ever work.
I hope nothing I said was offensive to anyone, its just my opinion and I hope more good discussion will be prompted as others voice their opinions on the situation, and on my opinion.