Brinn wrote:
Certainly the accord was humiliating for Saddam but I think you underestimate his goals in the conflict which ensued.
either I do or you sorely over-estimate them
The bigger prize was Iranian Khuzestan which contains the vast amount of Iran’s oil reserves.
yep .. territorial dispute
I was not alluding to the fact that Saddam was not expansionist .. not at all .. he wanted to expand his territory .. and that was the main intent of his aggression against Iran.
A second factor .. was the existence of the Shah himself imho .. he represented a great threat as you said .. being a fundamentalist Islamic fanatic (again imho) and Iraq being predominantly Muslim .. the message of the Shah was not something he wanted permeating Iraq. As for Hussein he is only Muslim by birth only .. he is purely a secularist leader .. and religous priorities do not accord with his own political objectives
per se
as you clearly agree:
Brinn wrote:A secondary reason was the fear that Iran’s revolutionary Shi’ite population (the majority population in Iran) would cause unrest among Iraqi Shi’ites. IMHO, Saddam attacked to reverse the Algiers Accord, to conquer Khuzestan, and to topple the new Iranian regime preventing it from igniting an Iraqi revolution. This once again illustrates Saddams willingness to use military force in his quest to eliminate any threat to his regime and to gain additional political, economical and military dominance.
Hussein made the aggressive move in attacking Iran .. and you seem to be glossing over the fact that he had US support .. militarily as well. And arent you claiming in reverse it is ok for the US to use military force in their more noble quest of eliminating any threat to them .. and gain additional political, economic and military dominance. Whereas in the case of Hussein he didnt
'gain' these outcomes from the Iran/Iraq war did he?
I guess that all depends upon your definition of direct threat.
I dont think so .. a threat is either direct .. or its indirect .. or its too remote to be either .. and in the case of Iraq representing a 'dircect threat' to the US .. it simply does not. Iraq is outgunned by the US .. most certainly militarily inferior .. The only threat Iraq represents to the US mind is in the possibility of its selling WMD to terrorists. No link has been substantially supported connecting Hussein to bin Laden .. they have never been allies. bin Laden represents all the same fundamentalist Islamic views that threaten the Hussein regime. Secondly, in assuming the possibility of such a link .. as I have explained Hussein is not suicidal .. He is a survivalist .. he has shown an immense drive for his personal and political survival .. joining himself with terrorist factions he knows is suicidal .. and he knows full well .. irritating the acquisition of an enemy like the US is a recipe for disaster.
First and foremost he believes that it was a mistake to have invaded Kuwait before he had nuclear weapons because he believes they would have deterred the US from intervening.
I believe it would have! For the same reason that the US is playing softly softly catchy monkey with Korea .. It makes perfect sense.
YOur second criteria accords with Hussein's known military responses. He has always shown that if he cant have them .. then he will make it pretty darn difficult for anyone else to.
Third, he believes it was a mistake to have released his western hostages in December of 1990, rather than keeping them and using them as human shield at high value facilities
. Another tactic the Hussein regime are known to employ. Human shielding .. but he did not .. and in this last aggression .. Hussein allowed the UN inspection team to exit safely .. and other westerners to do the same prior to US invasion.
Fourth, he reportedly has concluded that it was a mistake not to have attacked coalition troops when they were first deploying to the region and were vulnerable.
Well he may have stated that .. but in this conflict he did not make a pre-emptive strike against the US troops in Kuwait .. and even though everyone alleges he has WMD .. he has not produced them .. or used them .. He may well have them and if push comes to shove he may produce them .. but so far .. one wonders why he has not. Being that he is facing a far superior military presence!
Brinn wrote:If Saddam, the serial aggressor and mass murderer, aggresses against another country or ultimately acquires a nuclear bomb, who do you think will be ultimately be forced to deal with it?
Precisely .. IF .. I have heard many US commentators claim that he does have them .. I do not believe the US would have commenced this invasion if they really believed he did have them.
Well to answer that theoretical question .. the UN/
The US bowed out of the League of Nations and hence we saw its inevitable decline. The US has pledged its allegiance to the UN as did all the permanent members .. to avert future war and aggressions. Does that pledge mean nothing? Does it mean .. we only pledge to support the UN so long as the UN instigates those issues which forward US interests only?
The threat of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world is terrible
This is interesting .. yet so many wealthy nations possess nuclear capability dont they? We allow those who have them to retain them dont we? Yet we restrain the ability of smaller nations to acquire them .. because we say they are not responsible .. I would agree Hussein has not shown to merit this capability .. he has not shown to the world that he would be responsible with this capability. I agree.
But who can? Korea?? Most definitely not we say. So many smaller nations strive to secure the right of self-determination .. as we declare we respect (UN charter) .. and acquiring nuclear capability brings security to some degree from external interference ..
Brinn wrote:All that aside here is the direct threat you have asked for: On August 5th of 1991, shortly after his invasion of Kuwait, Saddam threatened the use of chemical weapons against US forces when he ordered the loading of Iraqi aircraft with chemical munitions to deter US intervention.
What do you expect in war? The Iraqi threat was directed to what they deemed as their opposition in this conflict .. Its like watching the news reports of suicide bombers .. This is war .. the Iraqis are facing a far more superior attacking force .. they will use whatever measures at their disposal .. like the vietnamese .. used guerrilla tactics .. Do we really expect the Iraq republican guard or whomever to just lie at the feet of coalition tanks? No this is war .. this is what the Bush administration instigated .. many will die .. on both sides .. There are those so totally committed to their country and nation that they will give their lives in defending it. Beats me?? I find it unbelievable! Its like human shield volunteers?? How can someone rationalise such an insignificant sacrifice as a noble contribution?? I just dont know.
As for this being evidence of a direct threat to US soil .. I'm sorry it doesnt make the grade. This was a contextual threat .. a threat in the context of the Iraq/Kuwait aggression more than a decade ago. Certainly doesnt forward the case for the imminent need of aggressions now.
As Sylvanus and Mhoram have pointed out, that relationship was one of convenience designed to maintain a fragile stability in a volatile region and to prevent the rise of a regional hegemon…The support was not moral in nature at all. Iraq is not and never has been an “ally”.
You are wrong .. the US backed Iraq against Iran and did so following the Iran hostage crisis .. with some research of your own .. you could find evidence in support of this yourself.
But he has used WMD extensively and if he is the shrewd manipulator (I refuse to call him a politician) that we all believe him to be he would have no reason to “glibly market” them. Under the UN resolutions it would amount to an admission of guilt and would provide the US with the “smoking gun” that it seeks.
Yet the US administration has never had any hesitation in accusing Hussein of making the attempts. I dont buy that .. Iraq has been held up as one who would supply terrorist factions with WMD .. well which way do the administration want it?
Brinn wrote: As far as providing WMD to terrorists goes I agree with you….It is unlikely that he would do so
. Well isnt this the basis of the threat Iraq poses to the US?
Brinn wrote:But because he is not likely to do it does not mean he absolutely would not.
and here we are back to the .. well .. he might .. maybe .. who knows ..
If it were highly improbable that the attack would be traced back to him or if the operation offered a very high payoff he may be tempted.
well he
may be.. Korea may also be .. and a number of other rogue nations may also be??
Brinn wrote:But none that present the regional and global threat that Saddam does.
I have to question this assumption .. I think Korea is more of a global threat than Iraq .. and the largest global threat to this date is terrorism .. and Osama bin Laden ..
Unfortunately I don’t believe we would have ever received the support of France, Russia, and China for reasons I have explained in the “Pre-emption” thread. Their vetoes would preclude UN approval.
absolutely .. but I disagree with your posited reasons. I believe these nations had a more simple agenda .. and that was peaceful disarmament .. increasing the inspection force and placing NATO troops on the ground in Iraq .. To simply exhaust these peaceful processes first .. they always agreed to the use of aggression as a last resort .. not anytime prior.
This is a unilateral action .. by a limited number of coalition forces .. it is unilateral primarily because it acts outside of the international consensus and acts prematurely to the UN resolution imho. But whats done is done .. and I dont want to spend more time arguing whats already done.
Brinn wrote:No offense intended but I think you are being either overly idealistic or naive.
I do have questions about all these issues myself .. I do not intend to be naive or overly idealistic .. yhet I think it is in my nature to be so. I feel the need to abide by international law and protocol .. to exhaust diplomatic measures prior to engaging military force.
Where have the 25,000 liters of anthrax gone? What about the 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and the 500 tons of mustard, sarin and VX nerve gas? And how about the 30,000 missiles and short-range rockets Iraq has failed to account for?
According to Blix and el Barade (sp?) the process of disarmament was making progress. 1441 was supposedly a more aggressive resolution infact instigated by the US. It was made very clear what Iraq was expected to do ..
What happened to Iraq proving it was disarmed? Now the burden of proof is on the UN.
It is a matter of fact that the burden of proof falls to the accuser .. isnt it?
I have great faith in the UN and the most damaging and threat to UN potency is lack of support from the major contributors.
I think we need to focus more on the UN at this time .. and I see the US doing this with their reflection on the role of the UN during the time of re-building in Iraq ..
what has gone before is a great pity imho .. but roads can still be built and an international community can still be salvaged. EAch needing the balancing act of the other.
anyway I gotta go .. I still have an essay outstanding .. and I have wickedly wasted some hours here already ..
oh may the gods have pity on me ..
oh and p.s. I dont have time to edit and check this draft so in all its rugged glory it is ..