The case against the case against attacking Iraq

Post #50,065 by marlowe 8/21/02 5:03:22 PM Reply	The case against the case against attacking Iraq [link\|http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60906,00.html\|Recursion is a many-splendored thing.] Excerpt: Scowcroft asserts, "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations" and that "there is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression." How about the 1994 Iraqi attempt to assassinate Mr. Scowcroft's dear friend, President George H.W. Bush? This is an undisputed fact, revealed by the Clinton administration before it launched cruise missiles to retaliate for the totally unprecedented attempt by a foreign government, Saddam Hussein's, to assassinate a former president of the United States. Isn't this "evidence" of both flagrant terrorism and that "the United States itself is an object of his aggression"? And how about the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993? That bombing killed many innocent Americans and nearly brought down the towers then, which would have resulted in far more than 3,000 deaths. Iraqi involvement seems evident, especially since the terrorist mastermind fled, and perhaps even today lives, in Baghdad. How about Saddam's current practice of bestowing gifts of $25,000 cash on the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, a huge amount of money in that society? Doesn't that link Saddam to terrorism? Isn't that "gift" an encouragement for young Palestinians to continue blowing up innocent Israelis and, two weeks ago, five young, innocent Americans in the cafeteria of Hebrew University? Leaving aside Saddam's probable connection to Sept. 11 (which I've discussed in previous columns), these seem to be -- no, they are -- blatant terrorist acts affecting Americans. Scowcroft spots two situations when attacking Saddam would be warranted. First, if Saddam refused inspection of a facility in Iraq, once he agreed to U.N. inspectors returning (which he's adamantly refused for the past four years). This, indeed, is a strange argument. Saddam's refusing to allow inspectors into one building in Iraq "could provide the persuasive casus belli," for Scowcroft, but his refusing to have any inspectors at all in Iraq somehow does not. Come again? Finally, Scowcroft says that "compelling evidence that Saddam had acquired nuclear-weapons capability" could warrant our attack. Well, you needn't have been a national security advisor to wonder: -- Is after Saddam flaunts having the bomb the best time to garner support from Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar, and the Europeans? -- Is that the best time to send American soldiers into harm's way on his borders or into his territory? -- Is that really the best time to liberate Iraq by ousting Saddam Hussein? Even a non-foreign policy wonk could grasp that it's smarter -- and far safer -- to free Iraq before the world's most destructive ruler acquires the world's most destructive weapon. I say: Policy vacuums suck. [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. We are here to go!
Post #50,076 by Brandioch 8/21/02 6:23:41 PM Reply	You're grasping now. How about the 1994 Iraqi attempt to assassinate Mr. Scowcroft's dear friend, President George H.W. Bush? Check out our policy on assassination. Remember, "terrorist" isn't defined as by what is done to you. It is defined objectively. And how about the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993? Please name the Iraqi terrorist associated with that. How about Saddam's current practice of bestowing gifts of $25,000 cash on the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, a huge amount of money in that society? Isn't it strange how such a "huge" amount of money results in ZERO Iraqi terrorists blowing themselves up? Leaving aside Saddam's probable connection to Sept. 11 (which I've discussed in previous columns), these seem to be -- no, they are -- blatant terrorist acts affecting Americans. "probable connection". No facts. In fact, all evidence (including the names and nationalities of the terrorists) seem to indicate a SAUDI involvement. But we're not talking about invading Saudi Arabia, you want to invade Iraq based upon Saddam's "probable" involvement. Even a non-foreign policy wonk could grasp that it's smarter -- and far safer -- to free Iraq before the world's most destructive ruler acquires the world's most destructive weapon. Gotta love that hyperbole. Is Saddam is the "World's Most Destructive Ruler", what has he destroyed? I can name 5 other, current, dictators with a higher body count. But, this is the US. Informed political discussion isn't the fashion. Rather, innuendo, hyperbole and manic nationalistic jingoism is the standard. No, it is not "smarter" nor is it "far safer" to invade Iraq now (before Saddam develops nukes). Doing so now would legitimize all the fundamentalist sects over there that are claiming that the US is intent upon turning their countries into vassal states of the Great Satan. And he's mixing goals. #1. Free the people of Iraq from Saddam's evil grip. #2. Stop Saddam before he gets nukes and is a threat to us. Two different goals with two different solutions. Again, if we go into Iraq, we're going to be there for YEARS and our people WILL DIE at the hands of fanatical suicidal bombers. During those years, the anti-US sects in the OTHER countries will be gaining political power and we'll have a huge disaster brewing. But, what the fuck? You can always blame the disaster on someone else and you'll look good for recommending swift, decisive action. I'd be more supporting of his plans if Kenneth Adelman were to move to Iraq (with his family) the month after our invasion. And stay there. It's easy to advocate war when you're thousands of miles from harm's reach. It's easy to overlook the flaws in your "plan" when someone else will be the one with his life cut short by a fundamentalist bomber.
Post #50,126 by wharris2 8/22/02 12:12:43 AM Reply	Who is grasping? Again, if we go into Iraq, we're going to be there for YEARS and our people WILL DIE at the hands of fanatical suicidal bombers. During those years, the anti-US sects in the OTHER countries will be gaining political power and we'll have a huge disaster brewing. That's better than 3000 people killed (non-combat, might I remind you) in the Towers? Two choices. Clean out the rat's nest, or leave it entirely. Leaving is, unfortunately, not a choice because of our stupid, stupid dependence upon the oil. Drilling in every wildlife habitat in Alaska (even if, which won't happen, it would wipe out every animal in Alaska) is more desirable than sucking oil from Saudi Arabia. Hell, everyone in that region (except Israel) already hates us. Witness the street celebrations held by "the people" on the Sept. 11 bombings. Most of those governments kiss our government's ass to get foreign aid. Saudi Arabia needs us there because without us they'll be a province of Iraq. Our Saudi "friends" fund terrorist movements out the wazoo, and funded our beloved Trade Center bombers. (IMO, we should withdraw all military forces and aid to Saudia Arabia and other supposedly "friendly" [haha] governments in the area, until they stop speaking out of both sides of their mouth, yacking about how they like us on CNN and denouncing us on state-supported radio and TV.) Every place there was a documented celebration of September 11, I agree with Jerry Pournelle: go in, give an hour's warning, bulldoze the ground, annoint it with salt, and errect a monument to our victims. (But I suppose we can't do that because, dammit Jim, thair's oil in dose sands.) If we were independant of the region for oil, we could withdraw everything and let everyone there kill themselves for all we care. Perhaps we'd continue to support Israel, as our only real ally in the region, but that's OK with me. Support the Saud? Egypt? Pakistan? hell, no, you want our support, you gotta show it. The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
Post #50,130 by Brandioch 8/22/02 12:40:03 AM Reply	Iraq != Saudi Arabia. That's better than 3000 people killed (non-combat, might I remind you) in the Towers? Okay, once again because it seems that certain people have forgotten some basic facts. #1. The hijackers were Saudi Arabian. #2. Their leader (Osama) is Saudi Arabian. #3. Saddam is in Iraq. #4. Iraq is not Saudi Arabia. Two choices. Clean out the rat's nest, or leave it entirely. Are you talking about occupying the ENTIRE middle east? Because that is what you're saying. Get a map. Find Afghanistan (the place we've already invaded). Find Saudi Arabia (the place the terrorists came from). Find Iraq (the place that we're talking about invading). Hell, everyone in that region (except Israel) already hates us. Witness the street celebrations held by "the people" on the Sept. 11 bombings. Uzbekistan. Tell me that they hate us. They're over there. Every place there was a documented celebration of September 11, I agree with Jerry Pournelle: go in, give an hour's warning, bulldoze the ground, annoint it with salt, and errect a monument to our victims. And I cannot lose any more respect for anyone who is so willfully ignorant as to support that point of view. Or do you for one moment imagine that EVERY person over there is represented by those you saw celebrating? But who cares. It's not like they're really people anyway. Let's just wipe them all out. Life sure is simple when your thought process ends at "them" and "us".
Post #50,158 by Arkadiy 8/22/02 11:17:34 AM Reply	Proponents of Iraq invasion keep forgetting: Iraq is a secular country. They are far closer to North Korea than to Iran. Yes, you can be a dictator w/o being a communist or a mullah. Surprise. So, in our batle with muslim fundamentalists wielding terrorism as a weapon, Iraq is neutral at worst, and may be a gunpoint ally (withess the "suicide" of that Palestinian bomber). Saddam is afraid of mullahs no less than Shakh of Iran was (or should have been)
Post #50,084 by a6l6e6x 8/21/02 7:46:20 PM Reply	Zbig, another national security adviser, on Iraq [link\|http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/3905771.htm\|Zbigniew Brzezinski] - "If America must wage war, then let's do it right." There is a right and a wrong way for America to wage war. Obviously, if it is attacked, America must respond with all its might. The same is true if an ally is attacked. But the issue becomes much more complex if a threat, but not an attack, is involved. America must consider carefully the consequences of its actions. The United States may have to go to war to oust Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq because the potential nexus between conspiratorial terrorism and the weapons of mass destruction that Hussein is said to be producing cannot be blithely ignored. But war is too serious a business and too unpredictable in its dynamic consequences -- especially in a highly flammable region -- to be undertaken because of a personal peeve, demagogically articulated fears or vague factual assertions. If it is to be war, it should be conducted in a manner that legitimizes U.S. global hegemony and, at the same time, contributes to a more responsible system of international security. He also talks about how not to start a war. Zbigniew Brzezinski, I respect. Alex "Television: chewing gum for the eyes." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
Post #50,095 by boxley 8/21/02 9:16:30 PM Reply	Poles and War, a poor predicate :) His threat assessments were bad then so I dunno about now however his statement is adequate, no half assing this. Do it right or leave it alone. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/Resume.html\|skill set]
Post #50,123 by dmarker2 8/22/02 12:05:17 AM 8/22/02 1:30:03 AM Reply	Re: The case against the case against attacking Iraq Do you recognise emotive arguments versus plain facts ? When someone says a person had a 'Relentless Drive to acquire Nukes' how do you read that ? - emotive ?, manipulative ?, does it tell us anything substantive ? - is it at best a biased opinion ? When a writer states that someone who has done a terrorist act 'might' have been associated with Iraq - how do you read that ? as a smoking gun ? - as a fact ? - as reason to attack Iraq ? If this same writer argues a justification for war based on that a WTC terrorist 'might now be living in Iraq' - how do you read that - as fact ? Doug M (If Iraq is up to no good, let us be quite certain about it before we do anything like declare war & invade - I have no compunction whatsoever about a pre-emptive strike if Saddam is proven to be planning major terrorist attacks on US or major Terrorist attacks against US interests). Edited by dmarker2 Aug. 22, 2002, 01:30:03 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #50,124 by dmarker2 8/22/02 12:05:17 AM 8/22/02 3:04:58 AM Reply	Re: The case against the case against attacking Iraq dual post - removed Edited by dmarker2 Aug. 22, 2002, 03:04:58 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #118,058 by Simon_Jester 9/17/03 9:10:04 PM Reply	A blast from the past.... Leaving aside Saddam's probable connection to Sept. 11 (which I've discussed in previous columns), these seem to be -- no, they are -- blatant terrorist acts affecting Americans. Damn...gotta quit betting on Red, eh? \ufffdTHERE\ufffdS NO QUESTION that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties,\ufffd the president said. But he also said, \ufffdWe\ufffdve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.\ufffd [link\|http://www.msnbc.com/news/967946.asp?0cv=CB10\| MS-NBC ] (I should go back and find the ones where people were saying "Feh!" to the UN. Please give us money..... Please?)

Welcome to IWETHEY!