From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 10:52:49 MDT
On 29 Aug 2002 at 14:17, Dylan Sunter wrote:
> He is racing to acquire a nuclear
> capability and enhance his other weapons of
> mass destruction.
>
> I have seen no evidence other than politicians and reporters saying
> so. I may be wrong, but in international diplomacy, tangible evidence
> for "wrongdoings" are usually required. But, I guess if its in the
> Times, it HAS to be completely 100% absolutely true and nobody should
> question it.
>
You ARE wrong; his former chief of nuclear development testified
before congress to his continuing efforts.
>
> He has no moral
> compunction about their use
>
> Only 1 nation has ever used a nuclear strike. Was it Iraq? No, it was
> the good ole' US of A: yup Im sure it was very justified wiping out
> innocent civilians. Saddam has other WMD, and whilst he has shown he
> will use against against the kurds (in the same way as allies such as
> Turkey who persecute Kurds also), there has not yet been any instance
> where these have been used against any other enemies.
>
Like the Iranians?
I address your tu quoque against the US below, where you repeat it.
>
> , to attack his
> neighbours
>
> Iran and Kuwait. The west didnt give a damn when he attacked Iran, and
> in fact the US and allies armed him at this time. Kuwait was
> different...too much oil at stake. How does this show he is an
> expansionist and will mindlessly attack his neighbours?
>
Twice in ten years is a pretty expansionist record.
>
> , to blackmail the West or to
> strengthen the radical Islamist terrorist
> organisations with whom he has worked.
>
> Such as other allies like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc....? How does
> this make him different, its a propoganda tactic only, and does not
> stand up to scrutiny.
>
It does for one reasons; Iraq would be the second majority Islamic
nuclear power (after Pakistan), but the first one led by a person who
has used WMD's against both his own people and his neighbors, and
who harbors a blood animus against the US and Israel and a Saladinic
sense of persinal destiny.
>
> Experts may differ about precisely how close
> Saddam is to possessing the most terrifying
> threat of all, nuclear weaponry, but the record
> does not give cause for comfort.
>
> What would be nice would be the provision of some real facts....
> something other than opinion for this. A list of confirmed occurences
> of any meetings which have taken place where nukes were on the agenda
> for example. Its very very easy to say "Saddam is relentlessly
> pursuing nukes" and this will make the front pages, but without any
> evidence from independent and verifiable sources, it is like saying
> "Saddam wears womens underwear" without verifiable evidence.
>
He has apparently had his purchase fellers out just about everywhere
attempting to buy fissionable material or complele nukes on the
underground market. To report many of the specifics would be to
compromise their sources, and thus to render them useless, or better
yet, dead. And how could the US intelligence community be privy to
secret meetings inside Iraq? Is it not asking a little much to demand
same before moving to forfend nuclear disaster? But once again, we
cannot risk the rising mushroom cloud you seem to require to convince
you; your being convinced is not worth tens of millions of lives.
>
> As Mr Cheney
> recalled, prior to the Gulf War America(tm)s top
> intelligence analysts would tell me that
> Saddam Hussein was at least five, or perhaps
> even ten, years away from having a nuclear
> weapon. After the war we learnt that he had
> been much closer than that, perhaps within a
> year of acquiring such a weapon.
> No responsible Western leader can afford to
> discount the consequences of Saddam
> possessing deliverable weapons of mass
> destruction.
>
> This is almost laughable in its bias, especially when the US gets all
> pious about irradiating innocent people.
>
Listen, smug dewde, we dropped that bomb twice, against a global
aggressor allied with Hitler who had sneak-attacked us, to force a
surrender so we would not have to spend a million US lives defeating
the Japanese (who, at that time, were radical Shinto, with suicide
attackers - Bonzai! - of their own) on their own island. It's been almost
SIXTY YEARS and several presidents since that happened. The only
person currently in office in any country who is known to have ordered
the use of WMD's of any kind is Saddam Hussein.
>
> He is a practised mass murderer
> with unassuaged territorial ambitions towards
> his neighbours.
>
> This isnt in dispute in the case of Iran and Kuwait. But there have
> been many instances of nations claiming other sovereign states or
> enclaves/principalities of another state as their own and it leading
> to military operations...in all cases, the aggressor nations leader
> has not been villified in the same manner as in Iraq.
>
They haven't been willing to cross that WMD line to do so. The only
reason chemical or biological weapons were not employed against the
coalition forces in the Gulf War is that he was warned that there would
be nuclear retaliation were they to be used. At that time, he had no
nukes, but once he has them, such a warning would lose much of its
asymmetrical effect.
>
> He is an unstable tyrant who
> aspires to hegemony over the Arab world by
> providing its most radical elements with
> political leadership and military support.
>
> Please define in terms which have some semblance of political
> understanding, rather than tabloid-speak.
>
Unstable tyrant - definitely a tyrant; he regularly purges his government
and military executing those he suspects might harbor any whiff of
disloyalty, and also attacks other ethnic groups (with WMD's) within his
own borders (the very use of those weapons constitutes evidence of
instability).
Aspiring to hegemony - he idolizes and aspires to emulate Saladin, who
was born in Saddam's home town of Tikrit and conwuered his way to a
Caliphate.
Providing radical elements support - whaddaya call paying out 25k to
the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, chopped liver?
>
> Terrorists who menace Israel and have
> operated throughout the West have been
> trained, financed and armed by him.
>
> Columbia, Somalia, Nicaragua....Oh yeah, the west, particularly the US
> has NEVER been involved in state sponsored terrorism. Let him who is
> without sin and all that.....
>
We would certainly not first-strike nuke such countries (and BTW, in
Somalia we lost soldiers who were simply trying to stop a warlord who
used starvation as a weapon by stealing UN and other food donations
before they could be equitably distributed).
>
> Defectors have warned us of the camps in
> which his confederates practise the hijacking
> of airliners.
> The $25,000 he gives to suicide
> bombers in the Palestinian Authority helps to
> ensure that terror(tm)s cutting edge remains
> bloodied.
> Possessed of of suitable weaponry, Saddam
> would create geopolitical chaos of a kind more
> dangerous than any we have known since the
> fall of communism.
>
> He would be able to
> destabilise the entire Middle East to the
> detriment of all its peoples and he could then
> place his boot on the world(tm)s windpipe by
> threatening its oil supplies.
> Possessed of suitable weaponry, Saddam
> would threaten Western democracies as no
> murderous tyrant has done since the Thirties.
> He could directly threaten the security of the
> Jewish people as no one has done since Hitler.
>
> Israeli security (not necessarily Jews in general) is threatened by
> their governments insistence of aggressive and illegal occupation of
> palestinian lands. The Israelis have never had a problem when it comes
> to lashing out at those who they perceive as being threatening.
>
Apparently you did not read the above, or you would not attempt to
equate the two. The Israelis have had nukes for some time now, and in
spite of being attacked by their neighbors several times and West
Bank/Gaza terrorists 70+ several times, have never employed them, or
any WMD.
>
> And he could hold Europe and the US, our
> interests, people and values, to ransom.
>
> How exactly? This is Sun Reader mentality.
>
By seizing the Middle East oilfields, tying the spigot flow to
acquiescence to his wishes, and threatening to nuke anyone who tried
to break his control of them.
>
> For he
> would be able to equip terrorists with the
> means to unleash attacks more devastating than
> those visited on America on September 11.
> The danger posed by Saddam existed long
> before last September. Indeed, I have argued
> on this page for his removal for many years
> now. But the World Trade Centre attack
> brought home, in the most horrific fashion, the
> requirement for action to protect the West from
> threats it had neglected or had believed could
> be managed by diplomacy and containment.
> Saddam(tm)s record, pathology and allies require
> a response from the West wholly different
> from the doctrine of deterrence that governed
> Western security thinking for 50 years. They
> also force us to rethink our inherited, and
> proper, respect for the principle of non-
> intervention in the affairs of sovereign states.
> As Henry Kissinger pointed out earlier this
> month, oepolicies that deterred the Soviet Union
> are unlikely to work against Iraq(tm)s capacity to
> co-operate with terrorist groups. Suicide
> bombing has shown that the calculations of
> jihad fighters are not those of the Cold War
> principals.
>
> What has this to do particularly with the "Iraqi threat"? Surely this
> is a separate issue?
>
Nope; Saddam is perfectly willing to pay 25k bounties to the families of
Palestinian suicide bombers; I'm quite sure he would feel no
compunction about using such a person to transport a tularemia vial or
a suitcase nuke to a US city if he thought he could get away with it -
and he has a history of horrific miscalculation.
>
> The international order has hitherto depended
> on the principle that national borders are
> sacrosanct and, however unattractive a tyrant,
> military action to remove a regime can be
> justified only by its breaching another state(tm)s
> sovereignty. But, as Dr Kissinger has noted,
> Iraq(tm)s imminent acquisition of weapons of
> mass destruction challenges that doctrine at
> root. For not only is Saddam(tm)s programme to
> acquire such weapons in breach of treaty
> accords and the international order, it also
> gives him the potential to threaten global
> security at will, possessed of the means of
> inflicting irretrievable damage on other states
> and peoples.
>
> However, this is Dr Kissingers view, and it appears NOT to be shared
> by the majority of allies in Europe and the UN.
>
They need to grow up. It's a different world now. They can't live in their
peaceful little US-protected bubble any more while biting the hand that
protects them - and their record of stoppping genocide in their own
region (see Bosnia) is less than pristine, to say the least - WE had to do
it for them.
>
> Saddam, and his terrorist allies,
> would be horrifically empowered. Our capacity
> to protect our citizens, and interests, would be
> grotesquely weakened.
>
> explain? The capacity would be the same, and would more than likely
> adapt. Granted, I dont want to see Saddam with nukes, but Im more
> scared of those nations which currently have them.
>
That demonstrates how truly naive you are; the nations that have them
have to a great degree been matured by the burden. Even the
territorial struggle over Kashmir has not occasioned their use. Saddam
is a different matter altogether; considering his history and present
actions, he most clearly cannot be trusted with them.
>
> The scale, and imminence, of the threat we
> face requires action of a kind it has become
> hard to contemplate. We have no alternative
> but to launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq to
> prevent Saddam completing his drive to
> acquire weapons of mass destruction.
>
> The UN appears to disagree with this analysis.
>
The UN appears to be an ostrich.
>
> Massive
> military force must be deployed to remove
> Saddam(tm)s regime. Such an action will
> inevitably lead to significant casualties, both
> Western and Iraqi.
>
> Correct - many people will die, and many civilians will be killed and
> injured needlessly. But thats ok, Iraqi civilians are simply
> collatoral damage arent they? But Will the US have the stomach for a
> war of attrition to remove one man, even though the effects risk
> destabilising the entire region again?
>
Not needlessly; many more - tens of millions, including millions of Iraqis
- will die if Saddam gains and uses nukes and we retaliate, which we
would have to do. And one nuke from Saddam is the very definition of
global destabilization.
>
> No reasonable, or moral,
> human being can regard such a course with
> equanimity.
>
> Is that right? Sounds like a trick to remind us "what to think!"
>
You seem to have already been infected with your own 'what to think'
meme.
>
> But reason, and morality, tell us
> that there is no alternative.
>
> Again, not according to the UN, and they are slightly better placed to
> make judgements than some right-wing journalist.
>
And not nearly as good as those who have dealt with such matters for
many years.
>
> Because the costs inherent in such a course are
> great, and because it would mark a departure
> from the paths with which diplomatic elites are
> comfortable, powerful voices argue for other
> strategies.
> There is no doubting their sincerity,
> or seniority. But then those who practised
> appeasement in the 1930s and detente in the
> 1970s were honourable men.
>
> This is not the 1930's nor is Saddam Hussein Hitler, and anyone who
> can draw a parallel clearly knows fuck all about either of them
>
You for some reason fear a quite reasonable parallel being drawn,
because it invalidates your position. But Hussein, too, is a fascist tyrant
with a haterd for entire groups of people and with a lust for his
neighbors' territory and assets and a twisted sense of personal destiny
who demonstrates no compunction about killing his own citizens or
those of his neighbors with the most effective means at his disposal,
and is perpetually endeavoring to acquire more massivly lethal means.
>
> It was never their
> intention to give tyrannies time and space to
> extend the reach of their oppression. Although
> that was the inevitable consequence of their
> inaction.
>
> yes, Iraq is in a great position to threaten the US, both economically
> and militarily. Get real...this is bellicose preaching from a man
> without the foresight to be self critical.
>
All it takes is a true believer, or someone - perhaps with a terminal
disease - who has been promised much money for his family, with a
suitcase nuke, or steaming a ship into a harbor, or inhabiting a cargo
container.
>
> So, today, those who argue that we should wait
> until it can be proven that Saddam actually
> possesses a nuclear capability are wrong.
>
> Opinion, not a statement of fact, but made out to be such.
>
The cold equations - tens of millions of dead - entail that such an
uncertainty dare not be risked.
>
> By
> then the costs of action would be hugely
> greater. And those who argue, like Jack Straw,
> that we should rely upon UN weapons
> inspectors to neutralise the threat are wrong.
>
> Oh really? Jack Straw, who is much closer to the real information
> which we mere plebs cannot fully comprehend, and who is a statesman
> with a long history and knowledge of world affairs is wrong because
> some journalist says so without providing a single shread of evidence.
> Yes, that makes complete sense.
>
And below is the historical evidence for such a contention.
>
> Saddam is a past master at frustrating the
> efforts of the best of them.
> As Mr Cheney again pointed out on Monday,
> oeduring the spring of 1995 inspectors were on
> the verge of declaring that Saddam(tm)s
> programmes to develop chemical weapons and
> longer-range ballistic missiles had been fully
> accounted for and shut down. Then Saddam(tm)s
> son-in-law defected. Within days the inspectors
> discovered that Saddam had kept them in the
> dark about the extent of his programme to
> produce VX, one of the deadliest chemicals
> known to man, and far from having shut down
> Iraq(tm)s prohibited missile programmes they
> found that Saddam had continued to test such
> missiles.
>
> On testimony...people will say anything to get where they want to
> be....All this smacks of confessions from 1984.
>
It's just evidence you don't like. Well, get this one straight and grok it in
its fulness with crystaline clarity; you would like Saddam detonating a
nuke in a major city, and what would happen next, far, FAR less.
>
> A return of inspectors would provide
> no assurance whatever of Saddam(tm)s
> compliance with UN resolutions. On the
> contrary, it would provide false comfort that
> Saddam was somehow back in his box.
>
> The faith placed in the UN, in inspectors, in
> containment, in all the tools of the old
> diplomacy, reflects the world-view of men
> such as James Baker and Brent Scowcroft who
> see foreign policy as an exercise in managing,
> rather than confronting, dangers. But the age
> upon which we have entered requires, like the
> 1930s and 1980s, a relinquishing of false
> comforts and a clear-eyed confrontation with
> evil.
>
> And much more intelligent men with more understanding than the current
> president, who have had experience of sending troops into battle
> against him before.
>
We dare not wait for the election of a leader you like to forfend this
threat; the stakes are too great for that kind of personal pettiness.
>
> It also requires a recognition that the
> traditional diplomacy which placed stability
> above morality only succeeded in
> compromising both. The realpolitik which led
> Republicans, and Tories, in the past to
> acquiesce in the propping up of regimes in
> Baghdad, and Riyadh, has not bought us
> security. It has allowed evil to incubate. And
> we have been forced to pay, in the innocent
> blood shed on September 11, for that folly.
> Now, however, America is determined to
> ensure that danger is defeated by liberating
> those whom its past policies have betrayed. It
> is an irony, and one perhaps not welcome
> among the old Left or the old Right, that
> morality has been restored to international
> affairs by a conservative American President.
> Just as it was in the 1940s by a Conservative
> British Prime Minister. While Europe stands
> irresolute and divided, while America(tm)s old
> managerialists cavil, while the Left temporises
> in the face of tyranny, the White House
> recognises that Western democracy(tm)s future
> depends on democracy taking root in Iraq.
> Cynics might call it cowboy diplomacy, but
> putting its faith in freedom is how the West has
> always won.
>
> I find this deeply disturbing. Cowboy diplomacy is perhaps not far off
> the mark, but then, cowboys tended to find themselves dead if they
> went looking for trouble. The rhetoric in this piece is top quality
> tabloid material, but hardly stands up to scrutiny as anything other
> than churned out political propaganda aimed at getting the domestic
> audience on side.
>
It actually stand up quite well; it persents the historical evidence why
saddam cannot be trusted with nukes, brings into stark relief the
dangers inherent in not preventing him from doing so, and clearly
outlines why the risks involved in toppling Saddam is no where near the
risks involved in not doing so.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:55 MDT