Agree with the facts, but I question the conclusions.

Post #48,215 by Brandioch 8/5/02 4:13:31 PM Reply	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 by screamer 8/5/02 5:15:35 PM Reply	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 by Another Scott 8/5/02 5:59:50 PM Reply	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 by Simon_Jester 8/5/02 6:53:56 PM Reply	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 by Brandioch 8/5/02 7:26:07 PM Reply	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 by screamer 8/6/02 12:20:03 AM Reply	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 by dmarker2 8/6/02 2:59:38 AM Reply	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 by Brandioch 8/5/02 6:47:06 PM Reply	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 by screamer 8/6/02 12:11:09 AM Reply	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 by Ashton 8/6/02 4:51:31 AM Reply	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 by screamer 8/6/02 10:37:50 AM Reply	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 by Ashton 8/6/02 6:43:58 PM Reply	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 by Brandioch 8/6/02 11:24:22 AM Reply	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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!