"War in Iraq could lead to the very use of weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Administration says it wants to prevent. U.S. claims about Iraqi weapons are greatly exaggerated, but it is likely that Baghdad retains some chemical and biological weapons capability. Saddam Hussein showed his willingness to use chemical weapons against Kurdish villages and Iranian troops in the 1980s, while he was a U.S. ally. If faced with military defeat, Saddam might launch an attack against the only targets he is capable of hitting--Israel or the assembled U.S. forces in the region. If Iraq were to kill hundreds of Israelis, the Sharon government might respond in kind, perhaps even using nuclear weapons. The Pentagon's new doctrine, as articulated in the Nuclear Posture Review, envisions the use of nuclear weapons for precisely such purposes--to counter the development or use of weapons of mass destruction by supposed rogue regimes in the developing world. If large numbers of U.S. troops were killed in an Iraqi chemical weapons attack, the pressure for a nuclear response would be great."
posted on August 5, 2002 08:56:29 PM new
I wonder when it will begin. So far I've heard various government leaders speculate that it will begin this fall, the first of next year, next spring, sometime in the next year, sometime in the next 3 years, sometime in the next 4 years, and sometime in the next 5 years.
posted on August 5, 2002 09:48:39 PM new
They've always said Sept-Oct.
Interesting that the Iranians have the Russkies building them a nuclear power plant when they're floating on oil. With an addl 5 more on order. I'll bet the Israelis are getting real nervous.
posted on August 5, 2002 11:36:41 PM newThere are many reasons for opposing military action in Iraq. The first and most obvious is the lack of a justification for war. Iraq has not attacked or credibly threatened the United States.
This article is wrong in so many ways. For some reason it tries to paint Saddam Hussein as a poor, misunderstood victim of American aggression. I don't have any desire to address the article point by point, because the entire premise is wrong. Saddam is a dangerous tyrant, and the war must be fought over there, before it arrives in America. If we wait until Canada or the U.S. are openly attacked, by then the entire world will be up in smoke. This is a man who pays a bounty to children who blow themselves up.
You should remember that during the Gulf war, it was feared that Saddam would launch biological weapons against Israel. It may be that he now has, or will soon have, that capability. If Israel falls, and the U.S. fails to respond, it will not be the end of terrorism, but the beginning.
What many Americans, and especially the peace-mongers, don't understand is that in some circumstances, war is justified and in fact a moral imperative. Our country was born of such a war against tyranny. What kind of world are the cowardly apologists building for their children? A world where Saddams commit genocide, while they cower in a corner, inventing excuses not to get involved?
You should understand that in the event of a biological or nuclear terror attack against the U.S., Americans will be screaming for blood. At that point, Bush (or any president) will have full approval to take even the most extreme action. We have done so before.
posted on August 5, 2002 11:59:38 PM new
I'm sure it will be sooner rather then later. If it were any other president other then a Bush I might think it would be justified. But, I don't trust this administrations explanations considering the history.
posted on August 6, 2002 05:33:14 AM new
twinsoft,
Saddam Hussein is not characterized in this article as "poor and misunderstood".
Actually, I think that the article is very clear about the character of Saddam Hussein calling him "a brutal tyrant and a perpetrator of terrorism against his own people and neighboring countries."
And....
There are many reasons for opposing military action in Iraq. The first and most obvious is the lack of a justification for war. Iraq has not attacked or credibly threatened the United States. Its weapons programs, while a serious concern, do not pose an immediate threat to neighboring countries or the United States. Under international law, one country is justified in attacking another only when it is under attack or about to be under attack. There is no casus belli here.
A second reason is the potential human cost of war. Saddam has demonstrated his willingness in the past to permit appalling losses of life in the pursuit of his military and political ambitions. If he is pushed against the wall in a final showdown with the United States, he will bring many Iraqis and Americans down with him. More than 100,000 Iraqis could die in such a conflict, and casualties among U.S. forces might be significant, as well.
posted on August 6, 2002 05:52:50 AM new
Why don't we just bomb everyone we don't like, dresses funny and talks wierd. Saddam, at present, is just a thorn in the side of America. Especially, the Bush family. He keeps pissing us off with his arrogance.
Why doesn't Isreal take him out rather than egging us on to do their dirty work?
Yes, he probably has chemical weapons...JUST LIKE US.
Yes, he is probably developing nuclear weapons...JUST LIKE WE DID.
Yes, he is practicing genocide in his country...JUST LIKE WE DID.
Maybe that is what really torks us off, We taught him so much and he has shown us no loyalty to give us cheap oil that can be sold for exorbitant profits is the US.
Before you try to refute ANY of this think, how much would any of the above would even be an issue if Iraq was one of our buddies and one of our major oil suppliers? Hell, the Saudis got away with the financing of the murder of several thousands Americans and the Bush Administration didn't even bat an eye. Heck, the Bush Administration even orchestrated the "wisking away" of the Bin Laden family members in country to "safety" away from the prying eyes of the investigators
.
Reality is a serious condition brought on by a lack of alcohol in the system
posted on August 6, 2002 06:38:07 AM new
For those of you who missed it, the war started 9-11-01, and we didn't start it.
Iraq is just one of several nations that must be subdued.
A report released in July by a Pentagon advisory group, which included Newt Gingerich, Tom Foley, Henry Kissinger, and a host of former higher-ups from the Federal govt, has declared that Saudi Arabia is in fact an enemy of the US and Saudi Arabia does support terrorism from its top to bottom.
They have recommended that either Saudi Arabia ceases such activity or we will take over the oil fields and freeze and take their assets.
Hopefully, the sooner the better.
[ edited by REAMOND on Aug 6, 2002 06:45 AM ]
posted on August 6, 2002 06:56:40 AM new
The url below links the report that Reamond mentions with excerpts about Kissinger's views of the briefing and a list of those in attendance at the meeting.
Of the two dozen people who attended the Defense Policy Board meeting, only one, former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger, spoke up to object to the anti-Saudi conclusions of the briefing, according to sources who were there. Some members of the board clearly agreed with Kissinger's dismissal of the briefing and others did not.
One source summarized Kissinger's remarks as, "The Saudis are pro-American, they have to operate in a difficult region, and ultimately we can manage them."
Other members of the board include former vice president Dan Quayle; former defense secretaries James Schlesinger and Harold Brown; former House speakers Newt Gingrich and Thomas Foley; and several retired senior military officers, including two former vice chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired admirals David Jeremiah and William Owens.
posted on August 6, 2002 08:42:34 AM newSaddam Hussein recently re-opened the weapons inspection question in response to U.S. war threats. Three rounds of talks have been held with Secretary General Kofi Annan on the possible resumption of the U.N. disarmament mission. Iraq has linked the return of inspectors to an end to U.S. military threats and the lifting of economic sanctions. Washington has refused to consider a lifting of sanctions, however, even though the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire resolution, which the United States helped to write, specifies that sanctions will be lifted when the disarmament mandate is completed. The promise to lift sanctions in return for compliance with weapons inspections would be a powerful inducement for Iraqi cooperation. It could help to resolve the dispute over weapons and end the prolonged sanctions-related suffering of the Iraqi people.
The debate about weapons inspections will be crucial to the prospects for war. The United States might attempt to take advantage of the inspections issue to build support for military action. If Baghdad refuses to permit inspections, or if it places new obstacles in their way, Washington might provoke a crisis by issuing an ultimatum. Iraq's refusal to comply with such an ultimatum could then become the pretext for war.
The quote above shows the bias in the article. As I wrote above, Saddam is portrayed as the victim of American aggression. We already know Saddam. We are familiar with his tactics. His "offer" to allow inspections will be followed by diversion, stalling, and ultimately a refusal to cooperate. But it might buy him the time he needs to complete his WOMD programs.
Yes, American has WOMD. So do other countries. The difference is that we do not use them. Saddam will use his at the first opportunity. We gave Saddam every chance to prevent the Gulf War. And now he has violated the terms of the cease-fire.
The most compelling caution in the article is the real danger from Saddam's military. Yet it is also the most compelling reason to fight him now. If we slink away in fear, Saddam will not enter the world's political arena as a statesman and man of peace, but as a viper.
posted on August 6, 2002 09:02:25 AM new
The ultimate democratization of the whole region is the only solution. We have a democratic foothold in Israel.
We can add Iraq to the list of democratic nations. This will hasten the democratization of the surrounding regimes.
WOMDs in the hands of unchecked despots is as dangerous as it gets. They have no checks on their actions or whims. Look what they did with hi-jackings and what they do to Israel with simple explosives.
Saudi Arabia is against the fall of sadam for one reason- Saudi kings and princes can not stand the thought of a successful Arabic democracy. The same challenges were pressed upon the royalty of Europe and they responded violently as well.
But even "if" these cultures are beyond a democratic existence, they must be de-fanged as soon as possible or the results down the road will be beyond imagination.
posted on August 6, 2002 09:12:36 AM new
Hussein is not being "concilliatory". He is trying to dictate the terms of the inspections AGAIN. The UN and the coalition do the dictating. He is just another tin Hitler, pushing as much as he can push for.
And to say he is not a threat to the US is sheer stupidity. He is a DIRECT threat. Warfare can be economic as well. A destabilization of the region or even a significant threat of one has global impact. Hussein could easily damage the economies of the West to the tune of trillions of dollars. This would mean much more than inflation and unemployment, it would literally mean the deaths of MILLIONS in the third world who would not be able to absorb this blow. Hussein could easily become the biggest mass murderer in history, making Stalin, Mao, and Hitler mere wanna-bes.
He has no need for the weapons. He has demonstrated he's a nut. Take him out. Administer the country under the UN. Pay our expenses out of the oil money and spend the rest on the population (prob a 500% increase there!) Then put the microscope on the Iranians and Saudis and make them behave.
You could end the threats and maybe solve the Palestinian problem by cutting off the terror funds and arms forcing them to make peace.
posted on August 6, 2002 09:50:37 AM new
War is a very terrible waste of lives, be it for the right cause or not. What is more terrible, are the leaks coming from elected members & military of our government, for political gain of the parties they represent, during any election year, or a time when our nation has so many problems.
Patrick Leahy & others like him should have been removed from office, not just removed from committees that are involved in the security of our nation & safety of our fighting men. It is a sad day when you leave a crook, in office to maintain control of the senate. It is also a sad day, when elected people place their political gains on war or peace instead of the welfare of all people of this nation.
Now that I have that off my chest. When will our war start with old Saddam. Let me say this, the first strike of atomic war just very well could be here. Then the question is by who? how did it happen ? WHO LET IT HAPPEN?. Old Saddam could very well do the first strike or anyone could & get away with it. That my friends is the sad part. But the best way is to keep them guessing as they are now. Then the Leahy's of this country won't kill so many of our son's & daughter's
I wonder if old slick Willie would pick up a weapon, get in a trench & fight for America, like he said he would do for Israel, if attacked by Iraq?. Na! he didn't before why any hope now.
posted on August 6, 2002 02:23:40 PM new
I don't believe the "leaks" are authentic. I remember the "leak" that Dan Rather reported during the Gulf War. He reported that we were going to have a massive beach landing in Kuwait. Nothing of the kind happend.
As Sir Winston said during WWII ' The truth is so precious during war that it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies'.
If any of these rogue nations get hold of a WOMD and give it to a terrorist group and they use it against the West, the US won't even know who to launch a repraisal against. Imagine if (or when?) al Qaeda had spirited a nuke into a major city and detonated it. What could our response be ? Hunt down some loony tune radiclas living in the Afghan desert ?
It should be clear that nations, peoples, and groups that mean us grave harm will do the unthinkable whenever they have the opportunity. Why wait to give them the chance ?
posted on August 6, 2002 05:03:48 PM newWhy wait to give them the chance ?
Probably for the same reason that, aside from a few paranoid schizophrenics, we don't all make it a habit to go about killing other citizens whom we dislike based only on suspicion.
posted on August 7, 2002 05:47:08 AM new
One of the hi-jackers met with Iraqi intellegence agents in Europe.
Iraq sends money to homicide bombers families.
According to recent defectors from Iraq, they do have bio and chem weapons programs.
Sadam has actually used gas against the Kurds.
Everyone refused to believe what Hitler was doing in the 1930s. We just let the situation go until it cost much more in destruction and lives. The "proof" many seem to want is the destruction of a major US city.
Once Iraq has these weapons, we can not deploy large amounts of troops in the Gulf. We then may be forced to use tactical nuclear weapons not as a last resort, but as our only choice.
People like sadam are not deterred by a threat of nuclear retaliation. He would merely hide away while his country was nuked. Just as al Qaeda could care less about the people of Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Terrorists are global gladiators. They do not need or have a "nation" or people to protect or to base themselves in nor a need to permanently base anywhere.
Your replies are very persuasive but I find it hard to believe that a world leader, even one as ruthless as Saddam would risk his entire country by using weapons of mass destruction. That would be insanely self destructive...beyond ruthless.
The consequences of a preemptive attack on Iraq are mind boggling.
Without the aid of Britain, Annan says that it's unlikely that the US will attack Iraq.
The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, said yesterday, "If Britain does not offer diplomatic and military cover, the Bush administration will be very hesitant to do anything - this is the conclusion that we have reached,"
"The United States, despite the rhetoric, finds opposition all over the world," he continued. "The only cover they have to say they have allies standing up with them is Britain."
Richard Dawkins, an Oxford science don, suggested Mr Bush was just as much of a danger to world peace as Saddam Hussein, adding: "It would be a tragedy if Tony Blair were to be brought down through playing poodle to this unelected and deeply stupid little oil-spiv."
I really don't think you "get" the mindset of a Hussein or a Hitler. Hitler was absolutely convinced the west was weak and would not go to war over throwing off the treaty limits (he was right), annexing Austria (he was right), carving up Czechoslovakia (he was right), or invading Poland (Ok, he screwed up, nobody's perfect).
Why is it that when a Hitler outlines his plans in a book or the Palestinians and Iranians claim they are dedicated to the destruction of Israel nobody believes them??????
posted on August 7, 2002 08:12:03 AM new
That's a given. Like the last time. That's how he will hope to rally support. That's why we must move massively and ruthlessly.
posted on August 7, 2002 08:19:35 AM newGoing around the world whacking all countries that might be a threat in the future is crazy.
So is "whacking" your own people. He's done it before. Do you "get" THIS Helen? Or don't THESE people matter to you?
for your viewing pleasure http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
posted on August 7, 2002 08:41:23 AM new
Now...KatyD - Helen's only repeating what George Monbiot said in his Guardian issue. [almost word for word] quote Monbiot: "Saddam is well aware that if he attacks another nation with weapons of mass destruction, he can expect to be nuked."
And anyone who reads the rest of his article can see his [Monbiot's] hatred of the US. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,769699,00.html where he goes on to wish us [US] well by further stating:
And we should cross our fingers and hope that a combination of economic mismanagement, gangster capitalism and excessive military spending will reduce America's power to the extent that it ceases to use the rest of the world as its doormat.
Who wouldn't agree with George Monbiot and his 'hope' for the future of our country.
Nobody can discuss anything while you are on a neurotic rant. Of course, I know Saddam's history of brutality. That is why we were considering the consequences of an attack on Iraq. What will this wild sob do? Do you get that? Will his next target will be Israel or perhaps Saudi Arabia.
Do you have anything more positive to add to this discussion or do you just want to rant? It that's your agenda, I'll try to post later.
posted on August 7, 2002 09:40:30 AM new
More insults, Helen? You sure whine and complain when you perceive others insulting you, but you are happy to dish them out. neurotic rant? Just how is my pointing out to you that Saddam's past actions go beyond the "suspicion" that he might engage in the use of womd's a "rant". I was responding to this comment of yours..
I find it hard to believe that a world leader, even one as ruthless as Saddam would risk his entire country by using weapons of mass destruction. That would be insanely self destructive...beyond ruthless
You seem to find it hard to believe that Saddam would engage in such "insane" behavior, yet my post to you is that he has and will in the future, if he deems such actions as beneficial to his own goals.
You posted:
Saddam has demonstrated his willingness in the past to permit appalling losses of life in the pursuit of his military and political ambitions. If he is pushed against the wall in a final showdown with the United States, he will bring many Iraqis and Americans down with him. More than 100,000 Iraqis could die in such a conflict, and casualties among U.S. forces might be significant, as well.
Substitute the name Hitler for Saddam, and the words, Europe for Iraquis, and we might as well be back in a time-warp 70 years ago. Well, Hitler was just gassing Jews, so it didn't matter, did it? That's what the same apologists like you were saying in America 70 years ago. Yet we were well aware of what Hitler was doing, just as we are of what Saddam is doing. Back then we had the "luxury" of being geographically isolated. Now we don't.
Perhaps the only thing that will convince you is those same pictures above, but instead of 'unimportant' Iraqui Kurds, they will need to be Americans in New York, or L.A. or D.C.
posted on August 7, 2002 09:43:49 AM new
The reason that other countries will not aid or support a war with Iraq, as opposed to the war with Afghanistan, is that we have no evidence to support accusations that Iraq has committed or intends to commit acts of aggression against the United States. Without that evidence, the only other credible reasons for the United States to attack Iraq would be if Iraq attacks another nation which is either an ally or asks for our intervention, or that evidence exists that such an attack is planned, or that an oppressed group within Iraq, such as the Kurds, asks for our intervention on their behalf. The Kurds are our only possibility at present for a credible reason to attack Iraq but they have repeatedly refused our invitation for intervention on their behalf.
Without evidence to do so, then an attack on Iraq is seen by the rest of the world as either irrational, i.e., crazy, and much of the rhetoric coming from the president and his administration the last year and a half about all sorts of international issues and lack of basic general knowledge of the world itself lends credence to that theory. The other view would be that the motive is primarily imperialistic, which is probably closer to the truth and the one more widely held. Hardly anyone has much use for Saddam and would like to see him gone, but the world community is unlikely to ever support an attack on another soverign nation without just cause or evidence.
We have the force, of course, to attack and defeat Iraq and the odds are that we would encounter no direct opposition from other countries, but whether or not the results would be worth the loss of lives and further international risks and complications is uncertain, even among our own military and diplomatic strategists. The most immediate and perhaps decisive factor that will influence how and when we react to the threat that exists with Iraq is the economy. If the risk of the political fallout here is too great for the Bush administration, then the timelines will be inched forward, waiting for political advantage.
U.S., Britain prepare logistics in Gulf for military campaign SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Wednesday, August 7, 2002 LONDON — The United States and Britain are taking steps to ensure logistical support in the Persian Gulf for any military campaign against Iraq. Gulf defense sources said the two countries are seeking facilities for fuel and water as well as ports for warships in Gulf Cooperation Council states, Middle East Newsline reported.
And on Fox news they showed an air-strip being built so our refueling planes have a landing place.
posted on August 7, 2002 11:24:01 AM new
Prediction- Iraq qill fall quickly, Sadam will be killed by his own bodyguards/troops, less than 1000 non-combatants killed or wounded, the greater part done by their own people.
The reason many countries do not support our invaision of Iraq is because they will not publicly abraid Iraq for fear of what Iraq might do.
Germany and France have been trading past the blockade with Iraq for years, that's the reason for their non-support. The other Gulf states can not publicly support the invaision because it leaves them in a precarious position if and until we do invade.
But watch, after we clean house in Iraq, every country in Europe will want a say in what happens in Iraq.
posted on August 7, 2002 02:04:37 PM new
The quick fall is the option du jour, discussed quite a bit at the NSA meeting yesterday from the articles that I've seen today. Most of the military advisers with field experience maintain that quite a few ground troops, between 80,000 and 250,000 according to different scenarios, will be necessary. Much depends upon our intelligence which seems pretty weak. Of course, that may be a smokescreen, but that's what I had assumed with Afghanistan and bin Laden, but it turned out that our intelligence really wasn't very good there.
I haven't seen any indications that any other countries aren't joining a coalition because of any great fear of retaliation from Iraq.
I noticed today that Bush's rhetoric has become further moderated and more reasonable after legislative leaders made clear last week that he would have to sell the war to the American people and our allies. The line now is that we are still exploring all options, non-military as well as military, and that there are no timelines.
quote Monbiot: "Saddam is well aware that if he attacks another nation with weapons of mass destruction, he can expect to be nuked."