Iraq

[Skyweir]

Aggression against Iraq is the current hot topic .. Most have followed the Blix and ElBarade (sp?) report to the UN and Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council yesterday .. have heard the rebuttals from Iraq and are aware of the international community feeling on this issue ..

What are you thoughts regarding Iraq .. and what do you perceive as the main issues here ..

[[Syl]]

my answer was with military force, but only because of the question mark. as an enlisted member of the u.s. armed forces my views are a little skewed. i'm fully ready to do my part in any military effort, but i'd rather those efforts weren't necessary.

i had somewhat of an inside track on the gulf war and operation northern watch activities. i've followed the middle east quite closely since '97. i can say for a fact that Hussein and the Iraqi government will do whatever they think they can get away with. it all just depends on how far they're willing to push the envelope. they will lie as long as nobody presents concrete evidence to the contrary (and amazingly, sometimes even then), and when shown any kind of proof they will ignore it. they generally have too much pride and machismo on the line to back down until forced to do so.

in my opinion, the UN is irrelevant and ineffectual.

[Skyweir]

In some ways the UN would seem to be irrelevant and ineffectual being that they get their power and effectiveness from the nations that support them.

And I am not only referring to Iraq .. the US also needs to support the UN processes if it is to have any real power. I think this entire issue has raised the real need of an interantional body/government .. not just the victorious powers of WW2 .. a totally representative body .. with an international military .. A body that will pull all nation states into line .. even the most powerful states when the need arises .. thus averting the oft double standards we have seen emerge.

I still have hope in the UN even though I do not think they are the most appropriate interantional body to date .. they are all we have at this moment.

Though nothing could be more relevant .. that if we want the UN to have teeth .. then imho .. its processes must be upheld.

I personally dont have any qualms about Suddam Hussein or this clearly rogue regime being deposed .. but I do have a problem with a US lead aggression against Iraq in the absence of a UN mandate to do so.

And the reason I harbour concerns is that imho this action sets an unsound precedent. Pre-emptive aggression has never been internationally accepted .. and for obvious reasons.

[Lord Mhoram]

The UN is held back by countries that are obstructive like Germany and France, however its a decent organization.

There is no middle ground here. You can either trust Saddam, or you can attack him. The Germans don't want to attack, but I'm not sure if they want to trust him. They're either with us, or they're with him. He needs to be disarmed. He's a threat to Israel, Iraq, and the stability the US strives for in the Middle-East. He has got to go. However, he's tricky. He may cooperate to some degree with the UN inspectors, and they'll have to tell the UN and the Security Council that they are cooperating. Then, it's hard for the US to explain why they must still use force to take out Saddam.

[vt53]

Other countries are right to fear us, we all know power currupts!

As an ex-airforce enlisted man I find the fact that we are going to war against some one with out a crime being commited by another country is offensive to me. we would not arrest some one in this country without open and complete disclosure by the arresting authority. whay is it OK t wage a war under a less stringent standard given the fact that innocent people will be killed

Just my opinion

[Lord Mhoram]

I forgot to mention in my other post, when thinking about 'nation-building', remember Vietnam. A very similar scenario- a US administration that wants to go into a country in an country in an unstable region and forge a stable country. Plus, Vietnam was part of the anti-Communist Cold War, while imo a possible war with Iraq is part of the new War on Terror.

[Reisheiruhime]

This is why I leave all the important thinking to the adults. I just put Is Iraq the threat we think it is. I mean sure, it probably is, but still... *goes off with a headache, passes out from mental stress*

[Skyweir]

The UN is held back by countries that are obstructive like Germany and France

How so? Germany and France support the UN inspection in Iraq. Isnt the UN held back by nations who do not respect the mandate endowed it? If the US were to go to war without a UN mandate then dont then the US discredit the UN and make its power ineffectual? In doing so the US undermine the UN authority and effectiveness.

The US pushed for the inspectors to be returned to Iraq didnt they? .. then why not allow them to complete their express mission? It is afterall what the US instigated .. and good thing too imho.

There is no middle ground here. You can either trust Saddam, or you can attack him.

Not many trust Suddam Hussein .. but why are these the only 2 options you can consider? Trust or attack? Since when do we attack nations on the basis we dont trust them? A war on Iraq does not selectively deal with Saddam does it? It deals with a nation of inhabitants that know little or nothing about WMD programmes.

They're either with us, or they're with him

. Thats very small minded .. why give Germany such an ultimatum? It is not that simple .. and Germany is a lot closer than the US is to the middle east.

He needs to be disarmed

.

Yes and lets allow the inspectors to do their job .. and disarm Iraq.

He's a threat to Israel

How is Suddam or Iraq a threat to Israel? The same way he is a threat to the US or any other nation in the world? Hussein's regime has operated a WMD programme for the last 20 years allegedly .. in that time has he once threatened US soil? NO! and you know why? Cos even Saddam is not that stupid. It would be suicide.

stability the US strives for in the Middle-East

Now here you tread on extremely controversial ground .. the US has not shown to be a stabilising influence in the middle east.

He may cooperate to some degree with the UN inspectorsand they'll have to tell the UN and the Security Council that they are cooperating

Blix will not mislead the Security Council .. he has shown he is not afraid to be brutally honest.

Then, it's hard for the US to explain why they must still use force to take out Saddam

I would like a more compelling and persuasive arguement for this deemed need myself.

imho .. war is not the optimum path to achieve disarmament .. and I believe most also concur with this ..

A US lead war against Iraq will create immense instability in the middle east .. a perceived influx of innumerable Iraqi refugees to neighbouring countries, rebuilding infrastructure, economic depression for the entire region, and collateral damage to US foreign relations in the middle east. Iran is also listed an axis of evil nation by Bush .. there will be understandable unrest in the region .. especially regarding the predominantly Muslim region ..

And doesnt it reak of double standard? What of Korea? Here is a state that has declared defiantly its resumption of its WMD programme? But Korea already has nuclear capability doesnt it? So the US is naturally to tread more softly with Korea .. so what does this say of Iraq??

There are more issues at hand than .. Saddam being evil and we need to send the cavalry of righteousness in to extinguish his evilness .. cos thats just simplistic. Its just not black and white .. though the media are want to make it that simplistic.

Saddam is an individual .. Iraq is a nation of millions .. and Iraq is part of a wider region ..

There has been insufficient evidence to link Saddam to Osama Bin Ladin .. and Powell himself has already stated that the US administration has never linked these 2 together ..

The threat of Saddam .. is what he might do .. maybe .. who knows one day .. maybe soon .. or what he could do .. if he had .. already developed .. or soon to develop .. the technology to .. if he .. and should he .. sell .. to those who could .. or might .. or one day .. er go .. the very real threat.

This is a different world since 9/11 .. but what kind of world has it become? A world where fear determines risk?

Saddam could very well represent a threat .. but when have we acted on a possibility that something may happen? what if it may not? thats another possibility isnt it? This is the doctrine of pre-emption .. do we arrest and convict people because they might commit a crime?

Internationally, a doctrine of pre-emption has never been supportable. It has never ever before been justifiable to invade/attack .. thats how WW2 began with Gemany's invasion of Poland ..

Germany took the offensive to remedy any threats to their goal of european and wider dominance ..

Maybe its too late to go back now and approach this differently .. but its not too late to support interational processes that have been established to deal with rogue regimes and internationally unacceptable behaviour .. like Saddam has shown throughout his history of rule ..

He needs to be disarmed .. it is not wise to allow a tyrant to control WMD .. so lets allow the UN to do its job .. and not undermine it at each turn.

I agree with Frances proposal to triple inspectors and send Nato trops into Iraq .. I agree to hasten the process by these means alone .. There is no pressing need to rush to war from the UN position ..

The desire for haste is the US .. because their small window of opportunity for an attack is growing closely to its end .. and then they too will be forced to wait .. or attack in the face of severe climatic conditions.

[Skyweir]

I forgot to mention in my other post, when thinking about 'nation-building', remember Vietnam.

dont even get me started on Vietnam When thinking about 'nation building' .. we must first think .. 'nation destroying'

The US wouldnt have to be involved in rebuilding if they dont destroy whats there first

• -and speaking of that is the US population prepared for the 40 year commitment of rebuilding Iraq?

• -Maintaining a military presence in Iraq for the duration or at least part of it?

..

• -Are US taxpayers prepared for a burden of this nature?

If Iraq is attacked much like Afghanistan was .. the entire infrastructure of the country will need rebuilding first let alone .. processes for the casualties of war .. homes, hospitals, medical supplies etc.. geographically Iraq is still a moonscape .. politically it is semi-stable, and socially the people are free from the Taliban but still suffering from the lack of infrastructure .. it will understandably take a lot more time ..

Regrettably the task of rebuilding is far greater once an invasion has occured ..

And just what would you like us to remember from Vietnam which can support the Bush administration's intent to attack Iraq?? The failure of the US to rebuild "a stable [US capitalist friendly] nation" in Vietnam? Because Vietnam was a resounding failure for the US wasnt it? ?And a comparison like this supports the notion to approach Iraq differently than they did Vietnam.

A very similar scenario- a US administration that wants to go into a country in an country in an unstable region and forge a stable country.

I think you are right .. it is becoming the Cold War all over again .. just with a different name. Fear and paranoia drove the Cold War .. where both sides of the equasion acted quite often irrationally and rashly .. which is not unlike this not so 'rhetorical' war on terror.

Yes do let's remember the Vietnam War ..

Ho Chi Minh as you remember was the leader of the Vietnamese "Freedom Fighter's" and was supported by the UNITED STATES during WW2 as the Vietnamese fought agaisnt the Japanese Most forget that little fact ..

Vietnam was French prior to WW2 .. but when the Japanese invaded Vietnam the French were pushed out ..

Ho Chi Minh was a actually not only anti-Japanese he was a 'Nationalist' .. he fought against the presence of the Japanese in Vietnam during WW2 with US support .. as I have already mentioned . but .. Vietnamese Nationalist's fought to liberate their country from not only imperialist Japan but also colonialist France .

After WW2 .. the allied forces allowed the French to reclaim Vietnam .. Ho Chi Minh as as liberationist was understandably outraged by this move ..
.. that Vietnam should be allocated as spoils of war! The Vietnamese Nationalist's wanted the liberation of Vietnam not its enduring subjection to other powers.

I do not believe Ho Chi Minh was not a dedicated communist .. but he became a 'communist of convenience' .. [like so many others - Castro's Cuba for one ]

When the allied powers permitted the French to return .. When it became clear that Vietnam would not receive allied support .. Ho Chi Minh began rallying support to oust the French. ..

Vietnamese capitalists wanted to maintain French rule .. and they alligned themselves with the French colonial forces. Ho Chi Minh's support grew amongst the rural society .. and as Vietnam was predominantly rural his support was significant.

It has to be remembered that the only supporter Ho Chi Minh could access in his struggle for national sovereignty was Soviet support .. Ho Chi Minh developed National Communism and gained his needed suppport from the Soviet Russia.

The US watched Vietnam closely .. .. when it became clear the French were going to lose .. and following the US-Korean stale mate .. the US brocured an agreement between France and suedo Vietnam [1956,57,58?]and divided Vietnam similarly into North and South .. Clearly this was a nationalist victory .. but did not satisfy Ho Chi Minh's realisation of a liberated 'Vietnam' .. and the Vietnamese Communist Nationalists infiltrated the South .. appealing to the Nationalist sympathisers in the South .. which there were many ..

The US had hoped to contain communism in the North as they had with North Korea .. they entered the conflict to support the French who had suffered immense losses .. and just wanted to get out of Vietnam and leave it to the Vietnamese .. When they did leave Vietnam .. the US became Big Brother to the South Vietnamese government .. which the US had for all intensive purposes established/contrived itself. So the US created a puppet government .. and pitted the South against the North and sat back to see if its protoge would win or lose .. all the while supporting the South militarily and financially.

In essence they created a civil war .. as they had in Korea .. and were no different to Communist Russia or China who pitted the North against the South. And because of this contrived division of Vietnam .. the War was extended a further 13,14 years .. with thousands upon thousands of more casualties than necessary imho.

If the US had not chosen to involve itself in Vietnam .. and allowed a Vietnamese election .. Ho Chi Minh would have won control of Vietnam ..
But this was all too clear .. indeed the majority of the Vietnamese people suppported Ho Chi Minh.

Had things been different the US could have sat back and played its cards right .. by wooing the Vietnamese government .. It wouldnt have taken much to gain in-roads into Vietnam .. there was no love lost between the Vietnamese and the Chinese .. The Vietnamese had no great love for Communism they fundamentally wanted sovereignty .. The US would have had no trouble buying their political 'enlightenment'

.. and at least at the end of the day the US would have walked away .. maybe not with a best buddy .. but at the very least .. not with an enemy ..

The US claims to respect national sovereignty and the right of self-determination but only if a states self-detemination agreeable to the US

[[Syl]]

The UN is held back by countries that are obstructive like Germany and France

How so? Germany and France support the UN inspection in Iraq. Isnt the UN held back by nations who do not respect the mandate endowed it? If the US were to go to war without a UN mandate then dont then the US discredit the UN and make its power ineffectual? In doing so the US undermine the UN authority and effectiveness.

Germany and France have their own vested interest (oil exports and arms imports) in Iraq that are not precluded by inspections. War and the proposed results of war (breaking OPECs hold), are not in their best interests. France has no problems with aggression when it suits their means. Ask Greenpeace. How dovish Germany is I'll leave to those more knowledgeable, but considering they've been selling arms to Iraq...

The UN doesn't need the US to be ineffectual; quite the reverse.

The US pushed for the inspectors to be returned to Iraq didnt they? .. then why not allow them to complete their express mission? It is afterall what the US instigated .. and good thing too imho.

It is a good thing, but only when the inspectors are allowed to complete their mandate, a mandate that requires Iraqi compliance which has been inconstant. Bush does not want the inspectors leaving Iraq again because they are not allowed to do their job. The same situation caused zero reprisal from the UN body the first time around, and evidence has shown this allowed a rapid increase in Iraq's WMD capabilities.

There is no middle ground here. You can either trust Saddam, or you can attack him.

Not many trust Suddam Hussein .. but why are these the only 2 options you can consider? Trust or attack? Since when do we attack nations on the basis we dont trust them? A war on Iraq does not selectively deal with Saddam does it? It deals with a nation of inhabitants that know little or nothing about WMD programmes.

War is rarely raised because of the actions of a country's civilians. Despite the accuracy of our long range weapons, it is impossible to remove a governing body with Tomahawks. Assassination on this scale is also unfeasible, and in Saddam's case, impossible (It's not paranoia if they are out to get you). Besides, assassination is not sanctioned (overtly) by our government or under the Geneva Convention (which Iraq has never been bound by). Civilian deaths are kept to the absolute minimum, but are still a certainty of war. If these people would rebel against their oppressors, war would not be necessary. Sadly, Saddam will likely conscript them by the thousands to act as missile absorbers.

How is Suddam or Iraq a threat to Israel? The same way he is a threat to the US or any other nation in the world? Hussein's regime has operated a WMD programme for the last 20 years allegedly .. in that time has he once threatened US soil? NO! and you know why? Cos even Saddam is not that stupid. It would be suicide.

And no right-minded muslim of fanatical tendencies would ever commit suicide to strike Israel or America??? Saddam doesn't dare because he's outgunned (he's a tyrant, but not a religious one). Just today inspectors found Iraqi missiles that exceed the UN mandated range. Israel is close enough to fly an F-14 to; it doesn't take an ICBM. SCUDS?

stability the US strives for in the Middle-East

Now here you tread on extremely controversial ground .. the US has not shown to be a stabilising influence in the middle east. [/quote]

neither has the UN. look at what happened in Lebanon after the Shah was deposed. the UN peacekeepers (from Iran) dropped their blue helmets in the dirt and used their peacekeeping equipment to harry northern Israel. in fact, the only stabilizing factor in the region since 1967 has been Israel's air superiority. Israel gave them a common cause, distracting them from their own internecine struggles, and kept them at it by not dying en masse like the evil zionists were supposed to. This is still an ostensible goal of Hussein (among others)

A US lead war against Iraq will create immense instability in the middle east .. a perceived influx of innumerable Iraqi refugees to neighbouring countries, rebuilding infrastructure, economic depression for the entire region, and collateral damage to US foreign relations in the middle east.

I fail to see the difference of this possible future and the present. The citizens already live in depression; it is the ruling class who are kept from depression by oil sales. While the people of Iraq suffer, Saddam buys weapons. The country can only be helped by rebuilding the infrastructure from the ground up. And if a western peacekeeping force is in the region supplying food, medicine, and education, perhaps the people will realize that we're not the great white satan afterall.

And doesnt it reak of double standard? What of Korea? Here is a state that has declared defiantly its resumption of its WMD programme?

A war on two fronts is never a good idea. We were dealing with Iraq before it was revealed that N. Korea had tampered with the seals on their reactors. This kind of multinational operation requires momentum, so we can't really just tell everyone to sit and wait while we handle Korea.

Saddam is an individual .. Iraq is a nation of millions .. and Iraq is part of a wider region ..

Saddam is an individual who controls a nation of millions in the most unstable country in an unstable region.

Internationally, a doctrine of pre-emption has never been supportable. It has never ever before been justifiable to invade/attack .. thats how WW2 began with Gemany's invasion of Poland ..

And if the US had invaded Germany before 6 million lives were lost? It is a black mark on our record that we did not act until Pearl Harbor. Even despite what we didn't know, what we did know was still equivalent to Iraq's treatment of the Kurds.

Despite my hawkish approach to the subject, I do not want war. For one thing, I'll end up working more hours and the military doesn't pay overtime. I think Hussein has to go, even if I believe our leaders might have made this an issue for the wrong reasons.

I would fully support the international effort if the UN wasn't so timid in performing and enforcing its own mandates.

The question is, what would SRD do (considering his role as a conscientous objector)?

[pitchwife]

How is Suddam or Iraq a threat to Israel?

Remember the gulf war in 1991? Saddam fired missiles on Tel Aviv. They were conventional missiles, but what prevents him from fireing chemically or biologically armed ones, if for some reason the situation between the Israelies and Palestinians deteriorates?

He needs to be disarmed .. it is not wise to allow a tyrant to control WMD .. so lets allow the UN to do its job .. and not undermine it at each turn.

I agree with Frances proposal to triple inspectors and send Nato trops into Iraq .. I agree to hasten the process by these means alone .. There is no pressing need to rush to war from the UN position ..

Do you seriously believe that the UN and even with the help of Nato can disarm Saddam? I doubt that the US can do the task...

IMO Saddam and Bin Laden aren't the problem, they are only the symptom. The real problem is that there is a deep chasm between the west and the Islamic nations, it is a clash of culture, and a struggle over world leadership. Recal that till the 15th century Islam was leading, it had conquered parts of Europe, it dominated science and literature. The Arab nations are longing for a leader that will unite them and return them to their golden age.

[Guest]

I will address issues raised by sylvanus .. all the quotes I take from his above post.

Germany and France have their own vested interest (oil exports and arms imports) in Iraq

Is it not feasible to you there may have deeper ethical concerns? .. the same can be said for the US aggression against Iraq .. 'its all about the Oil' .. I dont buy it either way .. imho it oversimplifies the issues concerning opponents to War in Iraq and .. the concerns of much of the thinking global population imho.

France has no problems with aggression when it suits their means.

Neither does the US and history can demonstrate that equally aswell.

Ask Greenpeace. How dovish Germany is

We dont need to really? do we? But Germany arent setting themselves up as the 'righteous nation' .. they have valid concerns .. it may pay to listen to them and give them some consideration.

The UN doesn't need the US to be ineffectual; quite the reverse.

which is my point precisely .. if any one is guilty of undermining the effectiveness of the UN it would be a power like the US turning its back on a UN mandate and acting unilaterally.

Iraqi compliance [which] has been inconstant

. Blix reported both sides of the spectrum in his address to the security council several weeks back .. he had concerns that needed addressing and he brought them to the table .. he now claims the opposite. That cooperation has improved and the process is functioning. However if Iraq is not fully complying the Security Council will receive such reports of non-compliance and I dont have a problem with a War on Iraq if mandated by the UN.

However, Bush doesnt seem to be giving the process the time it requires to complete its mandated role. He instigated the process and as such the process should be allowed to be completed.

But no .. if the US are going to strike .. they must strike soon before climatic changes create unrelenting difficulties for an invading force.

War is rarely raised because of the actions of a country's civilians.

umm .. yeah .. no arguement there .. *shrug*

(It's not paranoia if they are out to get you).

mmm .. I see!

So Iraq is out to get you?

Has Iraq declared this at sometime I am not aware of? They have endured US instigated sanctions for nigh on 2 decades .. as a result there has been significant suffering in Iraq .. did they threaten US soil?

The point is there have been no threats .. the whole aggression against Iraq is based on the US need to pre-empt an Iraqi threat. The US administration has declared the need to execute the 'Doctrine of Pre-emption' to cover that. It is no secret .. but its important to not get lost in the spin the media place on the issue.

The whole push for an act of pre-emption originates from a fear that Iraq may threaten the US .. not from any real threat directed at the US .. if this were so do you think any one would oppose US action against Iraq? No .. I dont think so .. not even the UN I wager.

It is the same fear and paranoia that was evident in the days of the Cold War .. with the same kinds of actions being taken. Have we learned nothing?

If these people would rebel against their oppressors, war would not be necessary.

But havent you just said on the other hand that Hussein is in control of immense armaments? And is a rogue etc? And you expect civillians unequipped to match such an opponent in a civil uprising?

Sure I guess it would be great if they did and succeeded.

Sadly, Saddam will likely conscript them by the thousands to act as missile absorbers.

pfft!! .. missile absorbers!!!???? hahahaha .. he will need tens of thousands .. he will probably be feeding them up now .. the fat ones will absorb more!!

And no right-minded muslim of fanatical tendencies would ever commit suicide to strike Israel or America???

Your sarchasm misses the point Sylvanus .. Hussein is not a islamic fanatic .. he has never shown to be interested in religion .. just power .. as you have said yourself

(he's a tyrant, but not a religious one).

you cant have it both ways.

Just today inspectors found Iraqi missiles that exceed the UN mandated range.

well isnt that the point of the disarmament process? If breaches are detected they will be brought to the attention of the Security Council .. and the UN is at liberty to mandate action for Hussein's forceable disarmament.

in fact, the only stabilizing factor in the region since 1967 has been Israel's air superiority.

Sure Israel brings stabilisation to the region because of its greater might .. dominance .. but thats the only or even preferred kind of stability the region needs at the end of the day .. is it?

Yes the whole region has always been plagued with unrest.

[Israel] kept them at it by not dying en masse like the evil zionists were supposed to. This is still an ostensible goal of Hussein (among others)

you must have access to intelligence not made widely available .. I have not heard any substance for such allegations regarding the Iraqi agenda. Since when did the arab world expect the evil zionists to die en masse .. no arguement with Palestine wanting that now .. but it was Palestine [call it what you will] who negotiated with the British to limit the numbers of Jewish refugees into the region .. Palestine always hoped for statehood .. and also remember that the Jewish ousted the British from the region via a number of acts of terrorism .. [or maybe they would prefer to call it freedom fighting *shrug*]

I fail to see the difference of this possible future and the present.

Regrettably it would seem you do.

The country can only be helped by rebuilding the infrastructure from the ground up.

why would the infrastructure require rebuilding? given that avoiding war may not require this?

A war on two fronts is never a good idea

yep and you can bet Korea is counting heavily on that.

We were dealing with Iraq before it was revealed that N. Korea had tampered with the seals on their reactors. This kind of multinational operation requires momentum, so we can't really just tell everyone to sit and wait while we handle Korea.

You were dealing with the possible threat of Iraq before the Koreans announced they possessed and would heighten their potential to be a real threat. The reason the US are handling Korea with kid gloves and respect is because they have nuclear capability ..

If a mad man has a gun .. you dont lurch at him and to grab it .. unless you have a death wish .. you talk him down .. calm him .. defuse the situation .. as best you can .. if this doesnt work .. you call in the squat team and take him down .. its not a sound rationale to launch a frontal attack on an unpredictable unstable element.

The US .. is handling Korea like this .. calmly and taking diplomatic steps to attempt to calm this 'evil nation' [George Bush's axis of evil nations member]

As one would expect .. but what does that imply about Iraq?

And if the US had invaded Germany before 6 million lives were lost? It is a black mark on our record that we did not act until Pearl Harbor. Even despite what we didn't know, what we did know was still equivalent to Iraq's treatment of the Kurds.

Right .. but Germany did take the aggressive stance and invaded Poland .. and this kind of aggression was met with the then allied forces declaring war against Germany .. the US were aware a long time prior to their hands being forced [Pearl Harbour] what Nazi Germany stood for and withstood countless appeals from the allied forces for assistance, of then Britain, France and Russia predominantly .. to assist them against Hitler's expansionist regime ..

but thats all history now .. and the US did join the allied forces and a great victory was secured.

Hitler is not a synonym for Hussein .. no matter how evil they both are .. they are also vastly different beings .. Hussein albeit he was quite expansionist .. he has sat dormant since he had the stuffings kicked out of him following Kuwait. If he is the threat the US admin want us to believe .. allow the inspectors to disarm Iraq ..

Despite my hawkish approach to the subject, I do not want war.

I think Hussein has to go, even if I believe our leaders might have made this an issue for the wrong reasons.

I share your belief .. and even though I do .. how we do it is important .. because whatever happens will set a precedent for future actions .. and this concerns me deeply.

I would fully support the international effort if the UN wasn't so timid in performing and enforcing its own mandates.

Me too .. but I dont perceive Blix as timid at all .. he is prepared to lay the Iraqi head on the chopping block if they are not co-operating appropriately .. in which case the US and the international community will have complete justification in acting against Iraq militarily under a UN mandate.

The question is, what would SRD do (considering his role as a conscientous objector)?

This is a question worth pondering .. I would be very interested in knowing the answer. I have been so heavily influenced in my thinking by SRD .. what I have learned through his amazing works .. that I prefer a peaceful resolution of disarmament to the WMD dispute with Iraq.

[Skyweir]

Remember the gulf war in 1991? Saddam fired missiles on Tel Aviv.

He fired several missiles at Israel actually .. but prior to the Gulf War Israel also bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear facilities near Baghdad without provocation .. because Israel was concerned about Iraq's nuclear programme .. Israel has lots of enemies to its national security .. and I wouldnt put Iraq at the top of the list. If we are going to attack every nation who is a threat to Israel we gonna be attacking a lot of nations.

They were conventional missiles, but what prevents him from fireing chemically or biologically armed ones, if for some reason the situation between the Israelies and Palestinians deteriorates?

I dont understand your point here .. concerning Palestine and Israel and Iraq using chemical or biological weapons?? can you explain please?

Do you seriously believe that the UN and even with the help of Nato can disarm Saddam?

well that is the plan! Thats what they are there for and increased inspection agents and NATO troops can only hasten the process. Disarmament is US goal isnt it? Neutralise the alleged Iraqi threat?

IMO Saddam and Bin Laden aren't the problem, they are only the symptom. The real problem is that there is a deep chasm between the west and the Islamic nations, it is a clash of culture, and a struggle over world leadership. .

mmm .. that is a regrettable assessment .. though in some ways you are right .. however an assessment like this leads to processes like racial profiling, segregation, persecution and suspicion. And smacks of that old 'Cold War' mind set .. were there was a clash or ideologies. This is not a war on Islam though? Arent these aggressions supposed to acquire its justification in the War on Terror ..

I agree there is a clash of culture between the east and the west but I'm not sure how far to take an assertion that Islam is the enemy .. Islam is not the enemy nor is it resonsible for 9/11 .. not then .. not now .. Fundamentalist Islamic groups sympathise with Bin Laden for sure .. but not moderate Islamics .. though I as you have pointed out I wouldnt be surprised if they dont feel it is indeed Islam which is being singled out here.

Singling out Islam would be somewhat akin to stating that Catholics are terrorists in Ireland and who knows even further afield??? because the IRA are made up of Catholic's in a religous war .. against the Protestant British presence in Ireland.

Its not sound reasoning imho.

[pitchwife]

... but prior to the Gulf War Israel also bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear facilities near Baghdad without provocation .. because Israel was concerned about Iraq's nuclear programme ..

which was a very smart move from the Israeli point of view, maybe what today enables the UN to deploy it's inspection agents. They're not doing it in North Korea as you pointed out...

I dont understand your point here .. concerning Palestine and Israel and Iraq using chemical or biological weapons?? can you explain please?

What are Saddam's motivations? why did he go into Kuwait? Why did he fire missiles at Israel without any provocation from her during the Gulf war? IMO Saddam aspires the role of the leader and unifier of the Arab nations. Attacking Israel and assuming the role of the savior of the Palestinians will in no doubt gain him points in that direction.

well that is the plan! Thats what they are there for and increased inspection agents and NATO troops can only hasten the process. Disarmament is US goal isnt it? Neutralise the alleged Iraqi threat?

This is the official goal, but I don't belive that this is the real goal. This is the only argument the US can use to convince the other nations to support them. Think for a moment, what changed in the WMD armament of Iraq in the last few months? What is so urgent now that was not important a year ago?

I agree there is a clash of culture between the east and the west but I'm not sure how far to take an assertion that Islam is the enemy .. Islam is not the enemy nor is it resonsible for 9/11 .. not then .. not now .. Fundamentalist Islamic groups sympathise with Bin Laden for sure .. but not moderate Islamics .. though I as you have pointed out I wouldnt be surprised if they dont feel it is indeed Islam which is being singled out here.

It's a mix of religion and nationalism at work here. I know that blaming Islam is not politically correct and has a scent of racial profiling, segregation, persecution and suspicion. But one is putting their head in the sand by denying it.

-pitch

[[Syl]]

umm .. yeah .. no arguement there .. *shrug*

This was in direct response to the "think about the civilians" line of thought, and i meant it to read that you can't wage war without affecting civilians, hence you can't walk away from a war just because civilians would be hurt. not unless you're against war entirely.

(It's not paranoia if they are out to get you)

mmm .. I see!

So Iraq is out to get you?

Has Iraq declared this at sometime I am not aware of?

That subpoint came directly after talking about the impossibility of assassinating Saddam. Nowhere did I state anybody was out to get me, and I find it difficult to believe anybody could infer that. And since we're digging at the logic of a comment that was intended as a humorous aside, I'll point out that Saddam is notoriously paranoid about assassinations on his person and keeps a coterie of look-alikes and constantly changes his location with no warning for that very reason. This has probably kept him alive because people are actually out to get him.

My mention of an Iraqi uprising was only wishful thinking. Instead, they will likely be conscripted by the thousands to defend Iraq. As far as "missile absorbers" go... it's a military thing. infantry is "soft." they are essential for holding ground, but not against "hard" targets such as missiles, artillery, or sustained gunfire. they are generally encamped around other "hard" assests to operate and supply them. since our ground operations are minimal in these conflicts, they usually take heavy damage from air and sea strikes... hence, they absorb missiles, and usually not very well. i imagine an iraqi civilian would welcome being made fat, but i doubt it will change his effectiveness.

My sarcasm may have been drawn with broad strokes, but my point was appropriate. If we have learned anything in the middle east, it is that we will be hit when we do not expect it by people we would not have suspected (Khobar Towers and the marine barracks in Lebanon are proof that it is not only religious fundamentalists who use terror to achieve their aims).

I'm not asking for anything "both ways." Tyrant has no inherent religious meaning.

ty·rant
n.
An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

Israel's role in the middle east is another argument. Like I said, I'd prefer peace without war, but so far that hasn't been a possibility.

you must have access to intelligence not made widely available .. I have not heard any substance for such allegations regarding the Iraqi agenda. Since when did the arab world expect the evil zionists to die en masse

As a matter of fact, I have held a TS clearance, and my specialty was in the middle east. However, what I'm referring to can be gleaned from most history books or newspapers. Only two countries have changed their stance since the six day war, and that's Egypt and Jordan. Google yielded these results...

www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=2480
www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/PressReleases.asp?did=662
www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4119963,00.html

the last link contains this direct quote:

Last Tuesday, Saddam Hussein met the head of the PLO's political department, Farouk Kadoumi in Baghdad and called - once again - for the destruction of Israel and for a "Palestine from the river [Jordan] to the sea." He urged Jordan and Syria to let his army pass through their countries and attack Israel.

Regrettably it would seem you do.

Don't condescend to me. If you think I'm wrong, back it up. Iraq has a poor infrastructure, backed up only by the sell of Oil (and even that was set up by the west). if it didn't, the country wouldn't be in the state it is because of export restrictions. even before that, it's not like the Dinar was held up to the Deutschmark or even the Yen.

Political turmoil has been a way of life since at least the 16th century. Emmigrants and refugees from Iraq are not an uncommon. If I remember the news bite from this morning correctly, the coach of the Iraqi national soccer team just defected for fear of his life.

We rebuilt Germany after WWII and look where they're at now. If you asked the Germans how they felt about it 40 years ago, I doubt they'd say the Warren plan was the greatest idea ever, just as I'm sure Iraq will not be thankful until many years from now.

I've enjoyed your perspective, even though it differs from mine. All I ask for is respect. Out of respect for everybody here, I've decided that I will bow out of any further political discussions. (God and politics always gets people riled up).

[Lord Mhoram]

Sky, you CANNOT compare the Iraqi threat to Israel to the threat of the US! Has Iraq ever fired a missile at us? Are we in the same region as Iraq, not onyl Iraq but other hostile nations? No. Iraq is a threat to Israel. HOWEVER, we have helped contain that threat. Saddam knows that the second he attacks Israel, we're all over him, with the UN's wholehearted support.

[Skyweir]

Ok first .. Sylvanus .. just because I do not hold with the same view point as you or indeed many others who post on this thread .. does not mean I do not respect you or anyone else. In example .. Mhoram is one I most often rely on to disagree with me .. and one I have the most highest of regard for.

Quote:Sylvanus
(It's not paranoia if they are out to get you). End Quote
mmm .. I see!
So Iraq is out to get you?

Naturally I wasn't seriously infering you believe Iraq is out to get you personally .. as you yourself didnt mean to imply that I would see differently if Iraq was out to get 'me' .. I took 'me' to refer to 'me' being Australia/n .. My point was not a personal or condescending attack .. moreover it was to state that .. your comment "(It's not paranoia if they are out to get you)" seems oxymoronic!

You have taken some comments personally which were not intended as a personal attack .. and it grieves me that in the spirit of this political debate you feel that the issues have detereorated to this level of discussion.

I have attempted to back up my points with supporting examples and statements .. perhaps insufficiently. However .. if I do not agree I feel compelled to address what I have issue with and why.

In a such a debate .. a wide variety and quite often divergent views are expressed and in some ways tolerated. Understandably these issues are significantly emotive .. I apologise if my off-hand way of arguing distresses you .. as I said there is absolutely no malicious intent on my part.

Perhaps I should restate my stance here ..

• I do not support Hussein or his rogue regime ..
  I do not support any unilateral action against Iraq
  I do support the UN intervention in Iraq
  I do support the UN Inspection protocol
  I do believe the UN Inspection process should be allowed to fulfill its mandated mission.
  
  If Iraq fails to co-operate satisfactorily with the Weapons Inspectors I support a UN lead action for the purpose of forceable disarmament of Iraq
  
  I do not believe pre-emption is a sound or supportable ground for aggressions without a sompelling and credible reason, which I do not perceive the US having supplied thus far.

I very much enjoyed reading the articles you linked .. though the 'American Jewish Committee' Press Release .. is not one I would regard as completely objective regarding these issues .. however .. they were all very interesting.

..
which was a very smart move from the Israeli point of view, maybe what today enables the UN to deploy it's inspection agents.

I dont quite understand your point here. Seeing that the Israeli attack on Iraq was prior to the Gulf War, how do you see this as having any bearing on the Weapons Inspectors presence today.

IMO Saddam aspires the role of the leader and unifier of the Arab nations. Attacking Israel and assuming the role of the savior of the Palestinians will in no doubt gain him points in that direction.

The following press release speaks of Hussein's intent of wanting to win appeal in Palestine.

Last Tuesday, Saddam Hussein met the head of the PLO's political department, Farouk Kadoumi in Baghdad and called - once again - for the destruction of Israel and for a "Palestine from the river [Jordan] to the sea." He urged Jordan and Syria to let his army pass through their countries and attack Israel.

Saddam can safely say this because there is no chance of being allowed to carry out his threat. It does, however, enhance his prestige on the street .

From this press release provided by Sylvanus, [which in his last post he quotes] .. it implies Hussein does want to be seen as the one to liberate the Palestinians from the Israelis .. but as we read the very next sentence [which incidentally Sylvanus chose to omit] .. the article goes on to state that there is no chance of his being allowed to carry out his threat .. and it implies that Hussein knows it. Which would imply a substantially empty threat a threat reduced basically to 'point winning' as pitchwife inferred.

Which vis a vis discredits this arguement imho.

This is the official goal, but I don't belive that this is the real goal.This is the only argument the US can use to convince the other nations to support them

Yes! .. I agree .. and thats something that really bothers me. And I dont appreciate the inferred deceptiveness on behalf of the US administration.

Think for a moment, what changed in the WMD armament of Iraq in the last few months? What is so urgent now that was not important a year ago?

I'm stumped .. can you tell me?

It's a mix of religion and nationalism at work here. I know that blaming Islam is not politically correct and has a scent of racial profiling, segregation, persecution and suspicion. But one is putting their head in the sand by denying it.

You see .. this is another aspect I have a problem with .. what are the grounds for this perspective? How is it denial not blaming Islam?

Sky, you CANNOT compare the Iraqi threat to Israel to the threat of the US! Has Iraq ever fired a missile at us?

Actually I didnt realise I had .. infact I was addressing the issue of Israel in answer to another poster who raised the issue of Israel. I agree .. it is an innane comparison ..

Are we in the same region as Iraq, not onyl Iraq but other hostile nations? No. Iraq is a threat to Israel. HOWEVER, we have helped contain that threat. Saddam knows that the second he attacks Israel, we're all over him, with the UN's wholehearted support

I'm sorry Mhoram I dont understand your point here.

Though you have raised one point ..

Iraq is a threat to Israel. HOWEVER, we have helped contain that threat. Saddam knows that the second he attacks Israel we're all over him, with the UN's wholehearted support.

which would imply that Saddam is not really as significant threat to Israel as has been proferred .. you have helped contain that threat .. and that Saddam knows that an attack against Israel would meet with significant international resistance that it would fail.

If Hussein were a chess playing man .. or even a poker playing man .. an attack against Israel is a stupid move .. as Israel is well protected .. and a threat of attack then is nothing more than bluff ..

And the larger picture view .. is that Israel actually has a number of enemies .. Iraq not being the most significant by any means .. Syria who shares a land-border with Israel .. is a more significant threat to Israel than Iraq imho .. Israel and Syria still have an ongoing dispute over the Golan Heights.

Historically Israel has a number of enemies because of the territorial wars fought to increase Israeli territory .. in an attempt to establish the 'Greater Israel'.

Israel is not really the crux of the arguement tho' is it .. the arguement I thought revolved around the supportability of a doctrine of pre-emption .. and whether an attack against Iraq is in fact supportable, sound or even legitimate.

[Lord Mhoram]

What I was trying to say about the Israel/Iraq region is that they're[Iraq] are geographically close to Israel, so they send missiles at them. The Iraqis sent Soviet Scuds at the Israelis during the Gulf War. What's preventing them from doing this again? America. Sky, are you denying the fact that Iraq is a threat to the region that it's in?

[Bannor]

This is a very good debate. I hope that both sides of the issue can always be discussed without anyone becoming angry. There are great points to both sides, but I really feel that we had so much success in 1991 when we had the full support of the U.N. We should strive to obtain that again (unless Iraq should make the mistake of coming over here and attack us). Again, a great debate.

[Skyweir]

What I was trying to say about the Israel/Iraq region is that they're[Iraq] are geographically close to Israel

with respect .. Iraq is a lot closer to Iran, Amman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria and Turkey.

Now .. I would be more worried about Turkey and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia .. they are much closer and more convenient US-'friendly' targets.

Sky, are you denying the fact that Iraq is a threat to the region that it's in?

well arent you??

The Iraqis sent Soviet Scuds at the Israelis during the Gulf War. What's preventing them from doing this again? America.

which you stated in your earlier post .. that Iraq wouldnt dare attack Israel cos you guys will be all over them .. like flies on honey .. more or less

Iraq is a threat to Israel. HOWEVER, we have helped contain that threat. Saddam knows that the second he attacks Israel, we're all over him

In law .. one can be charged with assault .. by merely threatening someone .. but the threat needs to be one that can be carried out .. or reasonably believed by the victim to be carried out.

You have said .. you have contained the Iraqi threat to Israel .. and before Iraq can say 'Jack Robinson' US troops with the full backing of the UN and er go .. large part of the international community .. will extinguish that threat ..

On the one hand you are saying Iraq is a threat to Israel and the entire region .. but on the other hand you are implying that threat can be stamped out easily .. So while you claim Iraq is a credible threat .. you undermine that claim .. you're saying he wont be able to carry it out .. and that he knows it .. but more interestingly is the fact that you say you know it too.

Saddam knows that the second he attacks Israel, we're all over him

What's preventing them from doing this again? America

Flippancy aside .. and in all seriousness .. I wouldnt say that Iraq is no threat at all to his neighbours .. Hussein is an unstable element .. which is why the US is so eager to remove him ..

But logic must prevail .. in the grand scheme of things .. US troops are strategically positioned to the North and to the South of Iraq .. besides that if Hussein did attempt a stunt like targetting Israel .. which to me is just suicide .. the US will have both military and moral backing of the international community to counter him .. as you say.

The Saudi's are supposedly US allies .. and have no great love for Hussein .. infact in one of the articles that Sylvanus linked .. it claimed Hussein was an embarrassment to them .. yet they do not support unilateral action against Iraq .. and are opposed to a War for the purpose of alleged disarmament of Iraq~period! .. but being an 'ally' to the US they could consider themselves a target .. so why defend Hussein at this precarious time? Well yes .. granted they are a lot closer in ideology than Israel and Iraq .. but still.

Pre-emption as a doctrine has never been supportable .. and to me sets a dangerous precedent .. but any justifiable act of pre-emption must follow a credible threat .. and to me the US has not shown just cause for a uni-lateral action against Iraq .. nor shown that Iraq is a credible or even conceivable threat to the US.

The US haste to war has more to do with military convenience than moral outrage .. any credible threat of imminent danger imho. Time is hastening till climate change .. and summer temperatures in Iraq will cause significant problems combatting possible chemical and biological Iraqi defenses.

It still intrigues me that the US arent more concerned about Korea .. but maybe its a poker-face strategy.