Post #47,900
8/2/02 7:28:23 PM
|
The Economist - "The Case for War"
How's that for a cover story title? For several weeks there have been commentaries and stories in The Economist magazine arguing that the US would be in the right to remove Saddam Hussein, even if it meant going to war with Iraq. I think they make a good case, though I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as they argue. [link|http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1259408|Here] and [link|http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1259229|here] are articles in the latest edition. From the first link: When he invaded Kuwait, Mr Hussein forfeited some of Iraq's normal sovereign rights. After his defeat, it became apparent that Iraq had been secretly developing chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, in contravention of its treaty obligations, such as those under the nuclear non-proliferation pact. Given this, and his recent aggression, the United Nations put Iraq under a uniquely intrusive system of surveillance, designed to ensure that his WMD efforts would come to an end. Crippling economic sanctions were to be lifted only when the UN's arms inspectors could be sure he had complied. Eleven years on, Iraq is still crippled, the inspectors have been forced out, and nobody believes that Mr Hussein has given up seeking a bomb or scrapped all the chemical and biological weapons he already has. He has literally preferred to starve Iraq than to give up his appetite for them.
None of this is to argue that a war to remove Mr Hussein should be undertaken lightly. Though the Iraqi army is even less of a match for America's than it was a decade ago, that was a different sort of war. With his own head and not just his most recent conquest at stake, and especially when he calculates that he has nothing to lose, Mr Hussein might very well use the unconventional weapons he has collected. The casualties this time\ufffdespecially the civilian casualties\ufffdcould be much larger than they were before.
It is little wonder, given this, that people of goodwill are groping for a safer alternative. But wishful thinking in the face of mortal danger is bad policy. Perhaps the best hope is that, as the noose tightens, Mr Hussein will save himself by letting the inspectors return. If they did so on a credible go-anywhere, check-anything basis, such an opportunity would be worth grabbing, at least to see if it worked.
Failing this, however, the outlook is grim. Some argue that a better alternative to war is to keep Mr Hussein in his box, persevering with the strategy of containment. But after 11 years, it is time to acknowledge that the box is full of holes and that containment has failed. By keeping Iraq poor, the sanctions have inflicted suffering on Iraq's people and so brought America and its allies into disrepute in much of the Arab world. But the sanctions have not dulled the Iraqi leader's appetite for the most lethal of weapons, and have slowed rather than stopped his ability eventually to procure them. The honest choices now are to give up and give in, or to remove Mr Hussein before he gets his bomb. Painful as it is, our vote is for war. This I think is the strongest argument for deposing Saddam. He has refused to cooperate with the terms of the cease-fire that ended hostilities in the Iran-Iraq war. The sanctions would have ended in a year if he had cooperated. Instead, he's caused his people to endure over a decade of additional suffering and has continued to ignore the terms. Enough is enough. If the UN is to have credibility, it must have someone enforce the terms in situations like this. And the only power capable of doing so is the USA. However, I don't expect war to come soon. I expect Saddam to let inspectors in, but to continue to thwart their work. I expect things to muddle along as they did in the past when inspectors were in place. Saddam will do his best to find a way to survive with as much power as possible. That's what he does. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #47,911
8/2/02 8:36:41 PM
|
Correct me if I'm wrong.
But didn't Saddam claim that at least one of our "inspectors" was a spy?
And Saddam resisted them.
And we started bombing.
And wasn't it later revealed that it was a spy?
Not to mention all the "support" Saddam gives "terrorists" (none of whom happen to be Iraqi).
All I see is a propaganda campaign to demonize Saddam so we can feel justified and rightous when we go in and knock over another anti-US government.
|
Post #47,919
8/2/02 9:20:38 PM
|
Seems all a semantic problem.
Saddam appears to have fully qualified as (most folks' definition of) 99.44% pretty-pure slime.
Unfortunately though, especially in the World of Commerce: those attributes + a monopoly gets you a Microsoft and Money. As Money is a Deity for the mercantile soul:
How can you rationalize attack on One form of pure slime and ignore all the Others?
I'm Certain we'll find a Way,
Ashton
|
Post #47,922
8/2/02 9:37:26 PM
8/5/02 9:38:56 PM
|
Re: Not wrong - original post proves propaganda works
World's only superpower accuses small Arab country of aggression - Who is the aggressor?
What Iraqi ggression, well back in 1990 it invaded a former province of its own over an oil dispute
But Iraq 'May" be producing weapons of mass destruction - even Richard Butler can only claim "may be"
and although he is a fellow Aussie I have never quite trusted him - he is US's man - it would have been
different had he ever been able to back his constant claims against Iraq
So Iraq resented the UN weapons inspectors & made life difficult for them why ?
- How many were spies (Several govts with inspectors in Iraq got very angry at US over US spying antics)
- How many were working to undermine the country's government (this case might be easier to prove that evidence Hussien as a nuke)
- They sure never found much evidence other than 'we suspect', 'We believe', 'Hussien may be hiding ...'
But but but Saddam is a bad bad boy - yes enough distorted propaganda has painted him so - every Arab leader who ever showed a leaning to Arab unity was and will be in the future, attacked as such - let history judge Nasser today, not dissimilar
Ask yourself folks, why does the world's last superpower want to invade & topple the governemnt of a smaller country against which it has no credible evidence of anything other than resisting the demands of the superpower - there is *no* other real evidence than the opportunity to regain control of Iraqi oil production.
The appalling aspect of this is that US has next to no supporters in this outlandish venture and again I would ask people to wonder why? - is it because all these other countries are stupid & don't understand politics?- is it because they know little about the region?
But in this case I have no doubt that no matter what Saddam accepts, US has its agenda & despite almost total opposition excepet from Britain, US will go ahead & histroy will mark down the era in which a superpower openly rode roughshod over the rights and wishes of much of the rest of the world
Edited by dmarker2
Aug. 5, 2002, 09:38:56 PM EDT
|
Post #47,931
8/3/02 12:10:35 AM
|
Don't want to go into Ritter's claims, etc.
Whatever their merits or lack. I don't have time to research the topic now. We both have our opinions and aren't likely to convince the other. Readers can check Google and other resources as easily as us. :-) However, there's a long history of UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq's responsibilities and lack of compliance. [link|http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm|Some] are particularly damning. Consider [link|http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Keyresolutions/sres98-1205.htm|1205]. It: 1. Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the Special Commission as a flagrant violation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions;
2. Demands that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally the decision of 31 October 1998, as well as the decision of 5 August 1998, to suspend cooperation with the Special Commission and to maintain restrictions on the work of the IAEA, and that Iraq provide immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation with the Special Commission and the IAEA; Resolution [link|gopher://gopher.undp.org/00/undocs/scd/scouncil/s91/4%09+Text/plain|687] set up UNSCOM. (Sorry about the crummy formatting.) 7. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:
(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;
(b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate
Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World
Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present
resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan
calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such approval:
(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;
(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for
destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph
8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 (b) (i) above and the destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission,
of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified under paragraph 8 (b) above;
(iii) The provision by the Special Commission of the assistance and
cooperation to the Director-General of the International Atomic
Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12 and 13 below;
10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above and requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Special Commission, to develop a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of this resolution;
11. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968;
12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above; to submit to the Secretary-General and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution a declaration of the locations, amounts, and types of all items specified above; to place all of its nuclear-weapons-usable materials under the exclusive control, for custody and removal, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General discussed in paragraph 9 (b) above; to accept, in accordance with the arrangements provided for in paragraph 13 below, urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless as appropriate of
all items specified above; and to accept the plan discussed in paragraph 13 below for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of its compliance with these undertakings;
13. Requests the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, through the Secretary-General, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General in paragraph 9 (b) above, to carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's nuclear capabilities based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission; to develop a plan for submission to the Security Council within forty-five days calling for the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items listed in paragraph 12 above; to carry out the plan within forty-five days following approval by the Security Council; and to develop a plan, taking into account the rights and obligations of Iraq under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with paragraph 12 above, including an inventory of all nuclear material in Iraq subject to the Agency's verification and inspections to confirm that Agency safeguards cover all relevant nuclear activities in Iraq, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within
one hundred and twenty days of the passage of the present resolution;
14. Takes note that the actions to be taken by Iraq in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the present resolution represent steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons;
[...] Emphasis added. Iraq under Saddam hasn't done these things. Bush's concern about these issues isn't something that he's constructing out of whole cloth using 9/11/01 as a pretext as some in the press seem to believe. We can argue whether the US should be enforcing UN resolutions. As a practical matter - If not the US, then who? I'm swamped, so I won't be able to talk much more on this topic. But I look forward to any comments you folks care to provide. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #47,932
8/3/02 2:30:37 AM
|
Re: From a historical perspective ...
Which country was the first & only to use weapons of mass destruction (nukes) against another ?? (ahhh but ...)
Which countries were the first to use poison gas against others (ahhh but...)
Which countries assembles massive quantities of germ & chemical warfare & still have them but now insist other countries can't (even though they themselves still do) ? (ahhh but ...)
Which superpower effectively controls the UN & either refuses to pay dues or vetos rulings it doesn't like ? (ahhh but ...)
What do the words 'pure hipocrisy' mean ? (ahhh but ...)
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #47,972
8/3/02 4:50:33 PM
|
Ummm ___Essay Questions here, not Multiple-Choice
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much, English bein a rich language and all - you've left some sucker questions in this mix. Hypocrisy is universal, and goes with power on any level. Maybe it appears worse? in the case of the US for various cultural defects we generally exhibit: Our especially evident xenophobia, our bucolic insularity - a consequence? cause? of our population's disdain for learning much of world history or even their own (especially within the chaos of today's educational establishment and creeping dumbth all around). Then there's our execrable sanctimony - evident most starkly in the excresences of the dinosaurs still roaming the halls of our congress and amongst our more-fundamentalist preachers - who have a large influence amongst the unwashed; they steer these folks into the kinds of simplistic homilies as reinforce all of the above. (Naturally we are certain too, that God is on Our side.. all unawares that: it translates into German, French yada yada) [Personally, I deem our sanctimony the perhaps Most Maddening of our many unqualities that gall all others.] I'd submit that any group which embraces the core principles of vulture capitalism displays a similar grade of hypocrisy, coloured by Their Own cultural proclivities and arrogance: The Raj, anyone? We operate under the notion that it is Good to fleece anyone who isn't quite.. clever enough to notice Your Scam (yet) -- and this is a perfectly OK activity. It describes "Heroes" here who are amongs the most predatory assholes the world has ever seen. Caveat Emptor remains our demiGod while $$ is the Real One. As with mercantile minds everywhere: can there be more smarmy a Robber Baron than a British one? (noblesse oblige and all) There just aren't as *many*. Which country was the first & only to use weapons of mass destruction (nukes) against another ?? (ahhh but ...) Loaded, I think - it invokes a recent revisiting (here) of the situation vis-a-vis Hiroshima, Bushido, perhaps millions of casualties in any invasion scenario.. not slogan material. Even 50 years later - or especially. Which countries were the first to use poison gas against others (ahhh but...) Historical non sequitur: plague-infected corpses catapulted over castle walls? Not 'gas' but certainly 'biochemical'. The idea is never far away from Any minister wearing white gloves and gesticulating over the Green Table: threating IF that THEN this: send the cannon fodder out. As to who first released actual 'gas' -?- too lazy to Google. Which countries assembles massive quantities of germ & chemical warfare & still have them but now insist other countries can't (even though they themselves still do) ? (ahhh but ...) US, USSR, China? Most Euro countries (depending upon the defn of massive), Iraq, ____? I don't know current status of our incinerators designed for destroying lots of this stuff. I don 't believe my government's official position on Lots of things: you, re yours? Natch though: We (and most others) ALWAYS justify such insanity as 20-50K nukes and this stuff as, "purely defensive" - Why we'd NEVER consider a first-use! [See under General Planetwide Hypocrisy, please] Which superpower effectively controls the UN & either refuses to pay dues or vetos rulings it doesn't like ? (ahhh but ...) Ya Got US. Not that there aren't nearly 100% wannabes: inseparable from the mercantilism, vulture capitalism and the Power-virus. And being a member of a defective AND juvenile species. What do the words 'pure hipocrisy' mean ? (ahhh but ...) Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Sorry Doug, but.. while I'll be the First to admit (and chronicle) the utterly duplicitous weasel words We are ever ready to employ to disguise our obvious intentions to maintain and expand our Imperial Power du jour - to suggest that the US has a monopoly on Power-madness virus, just begs the question of Universal Hypocrisy of all (large enough) organizations in pursuit of an advantage \ufffdber [Alles in die Welt]. We simply have managed to corner an obscene percentage of All Wealth on the Planet: because We Could. So we Did. It's Ugly but it is not solely Murican a disease. Would that we had evolved to become a bit wiser in our hegemony; realized that no 'One' Can 'Rule the World'; realized that dire poverty guarantees endless Wars shall follow. But we remain in the clutches of Puritanism, superstition and rampant dumbth, despite our techno-toys. The sanctimony intensifies it all.. I will give you - that we have less excuse than any previous Imperial Power, for our wallowing in open-ended pure-Greed, as WE DO. Greed/$$ is manifestly the Murican God, surely the shallowest imaginable Thing to worship. Today. But there are plenty of wannabes, only #2s, waiting in the wings. Ashton
|
Post #47,976
8/3/02 5:13:31 PM
|
First use, N, B, C.
Nukes: first battlefield use, the USofA against Japan.
Biological: first battlefield use, unknown.
Chemical: first battlefield use, chlorine gas released by Germany in WWI. I you don't consider chlorine to be a "chemical weapon", Germany also deployed mustard gas (a blister agent) in that same war.
|
Post #47,984
8/3/02 8:16:31 PM
|
Re: Real purpose of questions was to contrast ...
the situation with Iraq - Brandioch has the answers - point being it was mostly western powers that did & do all the things mentioned.
For example in the 'Great War' Germany was 1st as best as I know (agreement with Brandioch on this) to use phosgene gas.
Brits & French followed - I have no idea if US came to the theatre with any poisons (I would doubt it in the case of WW1).
MY grandfather was there & got a mild dose of the gas - affected him quite a bit - he died a few years later. Never got to meet him.
Real issue here is that no one but England supports US intentions. Even King of Jordan has urged Washington not to go ahead.
But Bush & co will & in so doing will be planting awful seeds of hate and Bush & co when long gone from Washington will have left
a nasty legacy for others to have to deal with. I can see this - others must ???
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #47,986
8/3/02 8:56:17 PM
|
Re that last:
Yes, the election clock moves so s l o w l y as each day, W's bush-league mind digs us in deeper. His ignorance of international protocol, history, human nature - is appalling.
The effects at home will be equally hard to extirpate - judges appointed, 'Faith-based-government!' charities, Ashcroftian weirdness. Much of the unConstitutional legislation may.. be reversed, but the overseas hideousness will infect another generation, even if W should be impeached over some next excess [Hah! only if about sex].
No argument about the seriousness of the damage being committed - or the setback in our worldwide rep: "The Ugly American" syndrome, instead of waning via our (also) occasional humane *activities, will be our moniker, now for an extended period IMhO.
* the %GDP we spend in 'aid' is far less than any other civilized rich country spends, whatever propaganda implies / public opinion believes.
The youngest will pay the mostest for this Village Idiot term, later on. (20 years from now folks will still be arguing how much Clinton's pecker had to do with the accident of W's ascension ;-)
Ashton
maybe it's all just Cosmic Humor? teachin humility n'stuff
|
Post #48,185
8/5/02 2:06:13 PM
|
Want some cheese with that whine?
You write: But Bush & co will & in so doing will be planting awful seeds of hate and Bush & co when long gone from Washington will have left a nasty legacy for others to have to deal with. I can see this - others must ??? When I was in Germany in the early '80s the US was hated for it's foreign policy... When my dad was in Germany in the 40's, the Nazi's hated America's foreign policy (imagine that?) The seeds of hate have been planted long ago against any nation that is as influential as the US currently. When the Sydney Opera House has planes flown into it we'll talk about world politics and pacifism. Right now, you appear to be functioning in thetiredoldrhetoricdumbamerican mode. Fuck you. We are a lit bit testy as a nation right now. I, personally, hate frigging Australia's foreign policy. Big deal, right? Does Australia have one? It better - look at a map. Can you say Indonesia? The situation with Iraq currently is a matter of "you can pay me now or you can pay me later"... Do you honesty believe that Iran or Kuwait or Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Israel!!! (or name any Iraqi neighbor) cares if we take out Saddam? This seems to be your suggestion? There's a bandwagon of nonsupport (except for Britian I believe you said?) for any action against Iraq... Please. When the bombs start, let's see how many nations "oppose" us... and not just out of fear. Once Saddam is deposed, Arab leaders will be falling over themselves to kiss our asses for "saving the region" and explaining that they "really" supported us all along but feared reprisal from Iraq under Saddam. Pathetic, yes, but you know it is what will happen. But I digressed. No matter what Bush or Clinton before him or _____ after them does, it will be viewed as imperialistic by every country in the world except one - because we are the most powerful country in the world at this point in history. My $.02 Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
As soon as you're born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
J. Lennon - Working Class Hero
|
Post #48,215
8/5/02 4:13:31 PM
|
Agree with the facts, but I question the conclusions.
Do you honesty believe that Iran or Kuwait or Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Israel!!! (or name any Iraqi neighbor) cares if we take out Saddam? "Cares" encompasses so much. Does Iran care if Saddam dies? No. Does Iran care if Saddam is overthrown? No. Does Iran care if the US invades Iraq, overthrows Saddam and institutes a US friendly government? YES!!!!! Because that is "proof" of the US's imperialistic aims. If your country isn't enthusiastically pro-US (allows us to have bases on your land), then your country is at risk of invasion. Why? Because you MIGHT develop a weapon that MIGHT be used to threaten our interests over there. Not that will threaten the US (the place in the North American continent), but that will threaten our INTERESTS over there. Once Saddam is deposed, Arab leaders will be falling over themselves to kiss our asses for "saving the region" and explaining that they "really" supported us all along but feared reprisal from Iraq under Saddam. Pathetic, yes, but you know it is what will happen. And the reason for this is.......? Yup, because if you are enthusiastically pro-US, you are on the list for invasion. They aren't doing it because they like us or respect us or support of position. They are doing it out of fear. And that just plants MORE seeds for their hatred of us. The BETTER way to handle this situation is with mutual defense TREATIES. If Iraq invades or threatens to invade a friendly nation, then we'll be landing to help "free" our "friends" from the "evil invaders". Pre-emptive, unilateral invasions are imperialistic. Mutual defense treaties are not.
|
Post #48,229
8/5/02 5:15:35 PM
|
Fair...
and I agree with your logic as well. But, I still feel that we (U.S.) are in a no win situation on a "popularity" front. If we do nothing (now that we have fanned the flames), we will be perceived as weak; if we do something, we will be perceived as taking advantage of the weak.
I think we may have an honest disagreement about whether there would be sincere gratitude or plain old fear by Iraq's neighbors. I am somewhat leaning towards sincere gratitude from countries that have historically been in Iraq's crosshairs. Many of these hatreds go as far back as the Ottoman, Byzantine and Persian empires... We are merely another "western power" on the trade route (silk road, etc.) that is trying to leverage one of these nations/tribes against the other for our current economic convenience. When the Shah was deposed in Iran (the longest continuous monarchy excepting perhaps Japan), we propped up Hussein. He took advantage of the situation (and did a lot of positive things for his country). The major question we need to determine now is whether he is another Hitler in overall aims and mental competency. If one concludes that he may be, then our responsibility becomes a little more clear. Our "responsibility" because we "created" him.
Hussein poses no real threat to the United States proper (except for maybe providing a haven for terrorist groups and a source of funds). It is Iraq's neighbors who will be feeling the brunt of his potential expansionist ambitions and weapons of mass destruction. Not to mention selling arms to radical groups.
I could be wrong, but I would highly suspect that certain countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan have been publicly denouncing talk of war and privately encouraging, if not finding ways to finance our aid in ridding the region of Hussein. Israel would most probably like nothing better. If history is a guide, none of the western powers sticks around all that long anyway.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
As soon as you're born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
J. Lennon - Working Class Hero
|
Post #48,233
8/5/02 5:59:50 PM
|
Um, Saddam got his weapons from the Soviets, not USA.
[link|http://www.milnet.com/milnet/iraq.htm|Source]. How did we prop up Saddam? The [link|http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm|FAS] says we sent arms to Iran during part of the Iran-Iraq war: Gradual Superpower Involvement
Iranian military gains inside Iraq after 1984 were a major reason for increased superpower involvement in the war. In February 1986, Iranian units captured the port of Al Faw, which had oil facilities and was one of Iraq's major oil-exporting ports before the war.
In early 1987, both superpowers indicated their interest in the security of the region. Soviet deputy foreign minister Vladimir Petrovsky made a Middle East tour expressing his country's concern over the effects of the Iran-Iraq War. In May 1987, United States assistant secretary of state Richard Murphy also toured the Gulf emphasizing to friendly Arab states the United States commitment in the region, a commitment which had become suspect as a result of Washington's transfer of arms to the Iranians, officially as an incentive for them to assist in freeing American hostages held in Lebanon. In another diplomatic effort, both superpowers supported the UN Security Council resolutions seeking an end to the war.
The war appeared to be entering a new phase in which the superpowers were becoming more involved. For instance, the Soviet Union, which had ended military supplies to both Iran and Iraq in 1980, resumed large-scale arms shipments to Iraq in 1982 after Iran banned the Tudeh and tried and executed most of its leaders. Subsequently, despite its professed neutrality, the Soviet Union became the major supplier of sophisticated arms to Iraq. In 1985 the United States began clandestine direct and indirect negotiations with Iranian officials that resulted in several arms shipments to Iran.
By late spring of 1987, the superpowers became more directly involved because they feared that the fall of Basra might lead to a pro-Iranian Islamic republic in largely Shia-populated southern Iraq. They were also concerned about the intensified tanker war. Emphasis added. Unless you want to argue that the US somehow made it possible (How? He had plenty of his own money, etc.), the evidence seems clear that the USSR was Iraq's arms merchant, and supporter, not the USA. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #48,243
8/5/02 6:53:56 PM
|
Chuckle...this is weird.
If you go back FAR enough (say back to before the Gulf War), you'll find that the US was support Saddam. Remember, Iran - who kidnapped some 100+ Americans and kicked out the Shah was our enemy.
(Alas, this is one failure of the web - old documentation, particularly governmental records, aren't readily available.)
But, if you so some digging, you find that the US wasn't support Iran (we got kinda torqued off at the Israelies who were selling our arms to Iran). Saddam was buying Russians arms (and Chinese and American and anything he could get his hands on).
Hell, I remember a congress arguing about not giving Saddam ENOUGH support prior to the invasion of Kuwait.
Damn...why does it feel like 1984?
|
Post #48,251
8/5/02 7:26:07 PM
|
Salon on that subject.
[link|http://www.salon.com/news/1997/12/05news.html|1997] Our problems with Iraq today are the direct result of them. After the Shah of Iran's fall in 1979, the United States, in a panic, began to sell weaponry to Iraq. It wasn't much, although we gave Iraq military assistance in less direct ways. One was real-time military intelligence during its war with Iran; when warplanes were taking off from bases in Iran, Iraq would learn it immediately from U.S. satellites. Another was $5 billion in U.S. agricultural credits, which Iraq used to buy weapons. The third was political credibility, which the U.S. gave Iraq by taking it off the list of countries that support terrorism and then recognizing it diplomatically. All this made it easier for Iraq to buy weapons from various vendors. There were also covert shipments from the U.S. of dual-use items, like trucks, some helicopters and computers through Jordan. A company in Rockville, Md., sold Iraq biological weapons agents.
|
Post #48,298
8/6/02 12:20:03 AM
|
Fair...
as Simon Jester points out, pre - 1985, he was our buddy. I was born in '61. I remember the Iranian hostage crisis... Was in intelligence in 1980. I knew quite a bit about who was supplying who with what. I meant to allude to this by mentioning the deposing of the Shah. Upon rereading my post, it is not clear.
That said, it is a vast oversimplification to say we "created" him alone. He was a creation of the cold war, just as the "Freedom fighters" in Afghanistan were. We're cleaning up many messes that were made many years ago. Which is why it struck me as so naive as to think that George Bush, Jr. or Bill Clinton or any one president can sew the seeds of a hatred that has been sewn generations ago. It's actually laughable as a concept. That is the way the history of nations are written, over generations.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
As soon as you're born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
J. Lennon - Working Class Hero
|
Post #48,307
8/6/02 2:59:38 AM
|
Re: Um, Saddam was manufacturing much of his own ......
The tanks & aircraft were purchased from other countries.
The planned nuke was home built.
Saddam accquired a formidable array of raw materials and technology & was producing Iraq's own missiles, fuel, chemical weapons, armour piercing shells, long range cannons, heavy hitting bullets plus the infamous Bull Cannon.
Iraq, during the Iran-Iraq war, was one of the more formidable weapons producing countries in the world. Not so much the volumes as the quality and sophistication. There can be little room for missing the point of how powerful Hussien would have been and been seen to be, in the Arab world, had he been able to keep his programs going.
Part of the reality of letting him into Kuwait was that it put the fear of Allah into the Saudis who were shown by US advisors that if Saddam chose, he could just keep going and take Saudi Arabia as well. There was never *any* real evidence Saddam had that in mind but from western perspective who cares about what he might do - lets stop him before he evens contemplates the thought (of course we did).
Cheers Doug
Most of the issue I have with the plan to attack Iraq is partly to do with knocking off Mr Hussien as leader of an independant country, but mostly to do with the crap justifications that we keep peddling to ourselves about why. My case is that let's be honest & stop decieving ourselves about the justification & the reasons, then go ahead & do it anyway. I am concened though, about the harm done to our image as westerners when we are seen as blatantly imperialistic by other nation's peoples who do not share our desire to protect our interests in their lands.
|
Post #48,241
8/5/02 6:47:06 PM
|
What do they have to fear now?
I'm not sure the "gratitude" would be sincere.
I don't see anything that Saudi Arabia has to fear from Iraq right now. Iraq is weak. We have our bases in Saudi Arabia (and other places). We could quickly move against Iraq if Iraq threatened Saudi Arabia.
Not to mention that Saudi Arabia knows of the US's hatred for Saddam.
The only way I can see Saudi Arabia being afraid of Iraq would be if Saudi Arabia thought that we'd leave Saddam in power and pull out of the mid-east and drop our oil imports. Anything less than that and we'd strike just as we did when he invaded Kuwait.
|
Post #48,297
8/6/02 12:11:09 AM
|
The prevailing westerly winds...
and damn I'm proud of my double entendres (sic) sometimes.
In all seriousness, if Saddam were to do something really stupid, like use nukes or chemical weapons on Israel... it would pose a huge risk to the entire region. Assume for one minute that he may have acquired some "weapons of mass destruction". (I realize that this is not a given). Do you believe that he would use them on a "western power" or on a neighbor?
He has shown his willingness to kill his own people with chemical weapons, his willingness to destroy the environment by his scorched "oil well" policy in Kuwait and the Gulf... His general willingness to sacrifice his own military personnel in a suicide battle against a far superior military adversary. If Nietschze was a nutter, I'd say this guy might just qualify as well.
I was referring to our pre-Gulf war relationship with this man when I said we "created" him. I may have been too broad in my statement and thank you for pointing this out to the other posters... We did "help create" this mess. And yes, probably for our oil greed and strategic location (want for military bases). Giving you all of those points, what do we do now? If we do not right this wrong, it will be tantamount to turning our backs to the Saudi's and Iranians and Jordanians and Kuwaiti's and Israelis. One more trait that I failed to mention above about Mr. Hussein, is his unwillingness to play by international law or treaty or UN or any recognized non-military authority... How do we negotiate with him? Seriously.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
As soon as you're born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
J. Lennon - Working Class Hero
|
Post #48,315
8/6/02 4:51:31 AM
|
Prevailing westerly winds... and their fallout patterns
In all seriousness, if Saddam were to do something really stupid, like use nukes or chemical weapons on Israel... it would pose a huge risk to the entire region. Assume for one minute that he may have acquired some "weapons of mass destruction". Precisamente.. and no one No One! can more than guesstimate how to calculate the India/Pakistan, Iraq/???, Israel/almost anyone Not-Israel >> *nuclear* possibilities. Almost any trumped-up 'justification' can lead to [gawd.. remember the Domino Theory as justification for the rape of Vietnam - followed by the phony Tonkin Gulf 'Resolution'?] Unfortunately too - for those who indeed see the situation as not unlike Windoze Stability illustrated [One More Time] -*- {{\\______/}} ___\\____/ ____\\__/ _____\\/____ ////////////// _*_ = a fly about to land one can justify the dissembling, the patently false semantic tricks du jour - just because the situation is so fragile! One major atrocity in Kashmir + a single nuke response - opens the Pandora's Box of 'spasm war'; that phrase from Hermann Kahn & Co, a group I know you are familiar with: weren't they the originators of the think tank label? (our first Nuke Wonks, diagramming the Unthinkable but Doable) That this combination should occur while the insouciant US non-voting electorate submits to a coup d'etat by a handicapped mediocrity: is both too cosmically humorous for words and / tragic. Especially since W's sights are set so low: his own and his pals' bizness success post-reign + various pater/son 'issues' no one can guess. Your closing note, One more trait that I failed to mention above about Mr. Hussein, is his unwillingness to play by international law or treaty or UN or any recognized non-military authority... How do we negotiate with him? Seriously. pretty well sums up (for me too) the greased cone balanced on its tip. Tough times to be raising kids, no? Ashton
|
Post #48,361
8/6/02 10:37:50 AM
|
Tough time for all...
Yes, the raising kids aspect of this equation makes this "laughable situation" less humorous. The "pay me now or later" means my son's generation re: Iraqistan... The last major spasm in the 30's/40's led to a lot of knee jerk lines being drawn. Many complex geopolitical decisions were set up with a few strokes of mighty (shortsighted) pens. I remember ducking under my desk in bomb drills in grade school. I learned Russian and offered my service to "fight the evil communists". And now, that wonderful chapter of world history is (hopefully) closed and we are facing the "void" left by the collapse of the other superpower...
Human beings continue to reproduce at unsustainable rates. Resources are still finite. More people have less... It is a formula for continued strife. Throw in the mythos and ethos factors and a few bi-products of the industrial revolution like the concept of "mass" destruction and weapons that can attain them. You've added two or three more stories atop the house of cards.
I don't believe that Iraq will be the strong wind that brings it crashing down. As always, I could be wrong.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
As soon as you're born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
J. Lennon - Working Class Hero
|
Post #48,464
8/6/02 6:43:58 PM
|
No, not Iraq, Pakistan, India per se - it's about triggers.
For your (well said) house of cards. It doesn't much matter Who makes the first egregiously provocative move; millions with a bad attitude and little personally to lose, await a chance to act out; tens of thousands with also a smidgen of 'tactical' training and materi\ufffdl -- are chomping / gnashing! at the bit, today.
At the moment, lookin for people to string-up at Nuremburg II (perhaps held in a demolished building in Africa - the Northern areas being too radioactive or infested?) I'll prenominate The USSC-Five: whose desire for like-mindset successors to their Personal Causes:
led them to betray their *Own* lifetime judicial principles about States' Rights and: Select the Village Idiot who is today capable of sneezing on the Twin Towers of Cards - all the while seeing these as merely - "a concrete bunker"...
{sigh}
Luck..
Ashton
|
Post #48,374
8/6/02 11:24:22 AM
|
How to negotiate?
That's rather easy.
We forge treaties with his neighbors. They let us put our military bases in their countries. If Saddam attacks anyone, it will be one of our allies. Then we attack him.
Given that we're more than capable of destroying his army (as we have proven in the past), he won't attack.
There, he is contained.
Unless he attacks countries that didn't sign treaties with us. :)
But that will provide easy "proof" of his "expansionistic" agenda which will allow us to invade him with the (verbal) support of our "allies".
Not to mention that we'd get to replace the government of the nation he just took over with a pro-US government (since they didn't sign the treaties before he attacked, it can be assumed that they were anti-US).
Of course, our BEST course of action would be to remove our dependance upon that region's oil so we wouldn't CARE who was in charge. But that's a different thread.
|
Post #48,257
8/5/02 8:18:49 PM
8/5/02 10:00:44 PM
|
Re: Your response ignores the message
Your reaction is to shoot the messanger who is as pro US as one can get -
Being pro US doesn't mean switching off one's brain & ignoring the obvious -
One message I conveyed was that *no* other major country but UK supports an invasion - even UK is in doubt as backbenchers start to raise the issue in parliment. Point I made was 'are all these other countries just stupid or igno rant, or don't understand the region'. I guess Kofi Annand doesn't count.
The problem with being bombarded with excessive propaganda is that it works - being outside the US at times of intense propaganda is a blessing. I was in/out of US during the tirades against the evil Norriega ("we sure kicked that evil bastards ass" - ignore his relationship with the CIA).
I am certainly sensing from the tone of many posts lately that an increasing number of y'all are feeling worked up about this 'invade Iraq' issue. I suspect partly out of frustration (propaganda barrage - you can't escape the issue) & part out of guilt (why do so many tell us what we want to do is wrong - damn them) & partly out of the desire to be seen as doing good (hell we know Saddam is a modern Hitler & we are the ones to take him out).
There comes a time when good analysis and debate begins to lose the ears & brains needed to work it through. Maybe we are there or at least close.
Cheers
Doug
Edited by dmarker2
Aug. 5, 2002, 08:35:39 PM EDT
Edited by dmarker2
Aug. 5, 2002, 10:00:44 PM EDT
|
Post #48,382
8/6/02 11:57:40 AM
|
Fair again...
and yes, it is very possible that I have succumbed to some of the propaganda that is circulating in this country. It's hard to shelter oneselve, although believe me, I try...
I am a free thinker however. I hear and appreciate what you are saying, yet there is still a little voice inside that says, "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later". I'm old enough now to kind of see how this works with geopolitics and history. I don't think the US should act unilaterally, especially in light of objections from it's historically strongest allies. But what do you do with someone like Hussein? The world community (and the UN) have all stated that he is a problem... The post gulf war "surrender" terms included UN monitoring of his military ambitions. He threw them out. Of course they were spies... They were there to find out what was really going on because we don't trust him.
What options does this leave the "world community"? More sanctions? Really tough sanctions that starve out more of his own people... This is a true conundrum. Perhaps the "world community" has no taste for enforcement of it's own laws and treaties. It is not heroic for someone to step up to the plate. It is preventative... It is the dirty work. Not something to be "proud" of.
Should it be the United States under the umbrella of a war against terrorism? Perhaps not. But who, then. It is not like these kind of people just sort of disappear if you ignore them. It will never be "convenient" for the world to do the dirty work and there will always be objections. George Bush Sr. worked with the UN. In a way, he salvaged a dying organization. The League of Nations is a good idea, but it needs teeth to enforce. Random thoughts I have. Sorry for fu...
Dan
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think your so clever and classless and free
But your still fucking peasants as far as I see
J. Lennon - Working Class Hero
|
Post #48,473
8/6/02 7:53:12 PM
|
Re: North Korea another case - Taiwan a worry ...
For want of a really bizzare dictator we should be after Nth Korea. Kim Il Sung & Ki, Jong Il his son (now the Dear Leader) truly must represent a threat to everyone.
In the past week news here in China has the Pres of Taiwan saying he would like to abandon the 1 China policy and hold a refferendum on independence for Taiwan, that speech has triggered deep rumblings here - locals know that China won't tolerate Taiwan breaking away from one China as it has the real potential to end up like a Cuba off America & would be used to play brinksmanship war scenarios in the way Russia used Cuba against US.
I share your frustration that Saddam survives, he isn't the ideal leader in the sense that like the Kim's he has created the leadership of a personality cult - not unlike Castro has. That can be good (rarely) but it tends to lead to the wiping out of capable rivals who can eventually take over in a stable environment.
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #47,973
8/3/02 4:55:42 PM
|
Is it just "enforcing"?
What I see from Bush is a call for a "change of regime". That means that Bush wants Saddam out.
I don't see this as enforcing anything from the UN.
This is toppling one regime we don't like so we can install another one that will be more friendly to us.
Saddam is NOTHING to us. He poses ZERO threat to our country. The ONLY thing he can do is disrupt the oil situation over there.
Which means that we're going to take out an existing government and replace it with one WE like for no better reason than OIL.
And because we CAN do that.
Because it will make us FEEL "better" to know we've "gotten rid of" a "dictator".
As for Iraq's determination to not comply with the UN's orders, I find that understandable when it appears that WE were USING those orders to HIDE our SPY.
I'm sure that everyone here will have no trouble in imagining whether the US would "comply" with a UN mandate if it was found that an enemy state was using it place spies in our country.
Again, it gets back to the US holding other nations to higher standards than we maintain.
Whenever it suits our purposes to do so.
And demonizing those who do exactly what we would do in those circumstances.
|
Post #48,137
8/5/02 10:50:07 AM
|
Of course they're spies.
They're trying to find out state secrets, like where the bioweapons are hidden. Duh.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Everything's a mystery until you figure out how it works.
Free Joel Mowbray!
I'm a-gonna put a gun rack on my SUV.
|
Post #48,156
8/5/02 12:16:28 PM
|
You make it too easy.
Is that the best you can come up with?
They were "spies" because they were on a publicly known mission with a publicly known agenda in a publicly known site.
And they're spies for doing that?
|
