Back to Iraq?
Back to Iraq?
Check out this [url="http://www.iht.com/articles/42281.html"]article,[/url] and tell us what you think: should the US mount a campaign to topple our old friend (seriously!) Saddam Hussein?
-
HighLordDave
- Posts: 4062
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
- Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
- Contact:
I think that the United States will need some sort of casual event before we can go back to Iraq. Since we have been unsuccessful in linking Saddam Hussein to the World Trade Center bombings, Dubya needs a strong link not only between Iraq and terrorism, but also that Saddam represents an imminent threat to the United States or worldwide security.
Then-President Bush got lucky in 1989 when Saddam invaded Kuwait and he was given an excuse to wage a war that conveniently diverted attention from a flagging domestic situation, but I don't think that Dubya will get so lucky. Saddam is a pretty smart cookie and spent most of the Clinton administration trying to bait the US into the role of the aggressor and I think he will try to do the same to Dubya.
The dumbest thing he could do is start making overt threats or unveil a nuclear/biological/chemical weapon and delivery system. He's too smart for that. Instead, he gets to play martyr among the hardline Muslim nations which generates lots of sympathy because a fellow arab brother is being pushed around by the west and thousands upon thousands of Iraqis are dying by starvation because of the trade embargo.
For the United States to go into Iraq, Kofi Annan and the UN will have to demand that weapons inspectors be allowed to return to Iraq with unlimited access, and when they are rebuffed, the UN will have to ask that someone (read: the United States) take action. Frankly, I don't see that happening given Kofi Annan's moderate stances on most issues and anti-war views.
If the US unilaterally decides to take action against Iraq (which is a very real possibility given Dubya's dubious history of cooperation with anyone), we will come off looking like bullies, which plays nicely into the hands of Saddam Hussein and the more anti-west Islamic states.
A more viable option if we are truly interested in removing Saddam Hussein from power may be getting the Israelis or Iranians to assassinate him or seriously backing a resistance movement to topple him from power, then take the lead in establishing a moderate iterim government.
Then-President Bush got lucky in 1989 when Saddam invaded Kuwait and he was given an excuse to wage a war that conveniently diverted attention from a flagging domestic situation, but I don't think that Dubya will get so lucky. Saddam is a pretty smart cookie and spent most of the Clinton administration trying to bait the US into the role of the aggressor and I think he will try to do the same to Dubya.
The dumbest thing he could do is start making overt threats or unveil a nuclear/biological/chemical weapon and delivery system. He's too smart for that. Instead, he gets to play martyr among the hardline Muslim nations which generates lots of sympathy because a fellow arab brother is being pushed around by the west and thousands upon thousands of Iraqis are dying by starvation because of the trade embargo.
For the United States to go into Iraq, Kofi Annan and the UN will have to demand that weapons inspectors be allowed to return to Iraq with unlimited access, and when they are rebuffed, the UN will have to ask that someone (read: the United States) take action. Frankly, I don't see that happening given Kofi Annan's moderate stances on most issues and anti-war views.
If the US unilaterally decides to take action against Iraq (which is a very real possibility given Dubya's dubious history of cooperation with anyone), we will come off looking like bullies, which plays nicely into the hands of Saddam Hussein and the more anti-west Islamic states.
A more viable option if we are truly interested in removing Saddam Hussein from power may be getting the Israelis or Iranians to assassinate him or seriously backing a resistance movement to topple him from power, then take the lead in establishing a moderate iterim government.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
-
Shadow Sandrock
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Rhode Island, USA
- Contact:
I will say only one thing.
I hope you guys do the thing right this time, and put that facting bastard Saddam six feet under.
He is not a muslim most muslims hate him.
He deserves to be dead.
InshAllah he will killed like the dog he is.
I hope you guys do the thing right this time, and put that facting bastard Saddam six feet under.
He is not a muslim most muslims hate him.
He deserves to be dead.
InshAllah he will killed like the dog he is.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
@Fas: Yeah, I kinda think we should have finished him off the first time 'round as well. I am glad to hear that most muslims dislike him. Did you know he called for an 'Arab Summit' on the subject of Isreal/Palestine? Do you think he will actually get anyone to come to his summit? (Sorry, that question is a bit off the thread topic, but I am interested.)Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>I will say only one thing.
I hope you guys do the thing right this time, and put that facting bastard Saddam six feet under.
He is not a muslim most muslims hate him.
He deserves to be dead.
InshAllah he will killed like the dog he is.</STRONG>
@HighLordDave: I agree with what you say. I have never quite understood why the US/UN backed off the weapons inspection program - ? I know that Iraq forced them out, but why weren't they forced right back in? Everyone knows that Iraq poses a threat to, well, just about anyone, so why did we let the issue slide?
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
The conditions that allowed UN nations to enter Iraq in the first place involved its invasion of Kuwait. Typically, suspicion or even absolute knowledge of dangerous weapons isn't sufficient to allow a single UN soldier across the border of a sovreign nation without its permission--witness the frustration of so many countries that have tried to get a UN observer team in Israel every year for the last thirty-two years, only to have the motion vetoed in the Security Council by the US. (The US is one of five permanant nations that has the right of absolute veto. That may be unfair, but that's the way the game is played.) It is known that Israel has nuclear capabilities (believed stolen from the US), and may have nuclear weapons, as well. Nothing can be done to consider this.
Where Saddam is concerned, he initially had the entire UN demanding access for inspectors, and caved in. But over the years, the continued blockade on Iraqi exports and imports, the no-fly zone, and the reduction of what was once was of the three leading Arabic economies to ruin has played big in Saddam's favor. He's been very canny (as he was, up until the Kuwaiti invasion) at milking international sympathy by playing the America vs Islam card, and the Goliath Beating Down David card. The US has shown the usual foot in mouth over the years, regardless of the administrations that have come and gone. Result: Saddam knows he can turn away the inspectors, since nothing more can be done to him without the Security Council's permission, and if the US or UK demand troops, the Russians, China or France will supply a veto.
I do agree that a chance was missed when Elder Bush didn't simply take Saddam. Unfortunately, the principle of war crimes for international trial had not achieved any successes at the time. But Saddam's international crimes were significantly greater than those of Panama's Manuel Noreiga, and Bush never stopped hunting for Noreiga. I suspect Bush was less sure, less ****y in a region as unstable and unfamiliar as the MidEast. Would he had used the opportunity to woo the Arab countries and twisted one, Iraqi neck a bit in the meantime. A lot of pain and suffering, not to mention political face, could have been saved.
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: fable ]
Where Saddam is concerned, he initially had the entire UN demanding access for inspectors, and caved in. But over the years, the continued blockade on Iraqi exports and imports, the no-fly zone, and the reduction of what was once was of the three leading Arabic economies to ruin has played big in Saddam's favor. He's been very canny (as he was, up until the Kuwaiti invasion) at milking international sympathy by playing the America vs Islam card, and the Goliath Beating Down David card. The US has shown the usual foot in mouth over the years, regardless of the administrations that have come and gone. Result: Saddam knows he can turn away the inspectors, since nothing more can be done to him without the Security Council's permission, and if the US or UK demand troops, the Russians, China or France will supply a veto.
I do agree that a chance was missed when Elder Bush didn't simply take Saddam. Unfortunately, the principle of war crimes for international trial had not achieved any successes at the time. But Saddam's international crimes were significantly greater than those of Panama's Manuel Noreiga, and Bush never stopped hunting for Noreiga. I suspect Bush was less sure, less ****y in a region as unstable and unfamiliar as the MidEast. Would he had used the opportunity to woo the Arab countries and twisted one, Iraqi neck a bit in the meantime. A lot of pain and suffering, not to mention political face, could have been saved.
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: fable ]
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
HighLordDave
- Posts: 4062
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
- Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
- Contact:
I think at the time, the US did not feel that an international backing of the weapons inspection program was there and that we would have to call in too many markers in order to put weapons inspectors back on the ground. International politics requires a lot of give and take and I don't think that the Clinton administration wanted to concentrate solely on Iraq (which it rightly felt was another mess left to it by the Bush administration).
Remember that since 1992, the United States had to clean up after the mess Bush left us in Somalia, we bombed the Balkans, we pursued an aggressive mideast peace policy plus we chased after any number of other foreign policy intitiatives. I believe that for Clinton to get the moderate arab states to go along with his mideast peace policy and for the rest of the world to back his other goals, he could not look like a bully in Iraq.
I think that the Clinton administration put Saddam Hussein on the back burner and hoped that he would become the next Muammar Khaddafi and sit quietly in his little fiefdom with his head down and his mouth shut. Unfortunately, Saddam is much like a teenager and is constantly testing those around him just to see how far he can go before someone takes action.
When an imminent threat has arisen in Iraq, we acted swiftly and brutally, like when we bombed his nuclear research facility a couple of years back. I think it was a mistake for the UN to back off of its weapons inspection program, but I also think there was a prevailing sentiment around the world that the sanctions on Iraq were tough enough and that the weapons inspectors were pushed down to a lower priority.
I would have hoped that the world would have learned from the British inspectors in the 1930s who were supposed to enforce the demilitarisation provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, but felt that the terms were too harsh and turned a blind eye to the formation of the Luftwaffe, mechanisation of the Wehrmacht, and construction of ships like Graf Spee and Bismark.
Remember that since 1992, the United States had to clean up after the mess Bush left us in Somalia, we bombed the Balkans, we pursued an aggressive mideast peace policy plus we chased after any number of other foreign policy intitiatives. I believe that for Clinton to get the moderate arab states to go along with his mideast peace policy and for the rest of the world to back his other goals, he could not look like a bully in Iraq.
I think that the Clinton administration put Saddam Hussein on the back burner and hoped that he would become the next Muammar Khaddafi and sit quietly in his little fiefdom with his head down and his mouth shut. Unfortunately, Saddam is much like a teenager and is constantly testing those around him just to see how far he can go before someone takes action.
When an imminent threat has arisen in Iraq, we acted swiftly and brutally, like when we bombed his nuclear research facility a couple of years back. I think it was a mistake for the UN to back off of its weapons inspection program, but I also think there was a prevailing sentiment around the world that the sanctions on Iraq were tough enough and that the weapons inspectors were pushed down to a lower priority.
I would have hoped that the world would have learned from the British inspectors in the 1930s who were supposed to enforce the demilitarisation provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, but felt that the terms were too harsh and turned a blind eye to the formation of the Luftwaffe, mechanisation of the Wehrmacht, and construction of ships like Graf Spee and Bismark.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
I just heard the American forces are being strongly increased in Oman, Yemen, Kuwait, etc, and that Yemen forces are currently engaged in fighting a loose coalition of terrorist organizations related to Al-Qa'ida. I think this is a smart move, rather than turning to Iraq at this time.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Both fable and HighLordDave sorta answered my question, and sorta didn't 
I am still not understanding why the UN has not FORCED the issue of weapons inspectors - ? Does anyone doubt that Hussein is working to build weapons of mass destruction? Why would the UN not simply drop a few inspectors in with a heavy guard, and start moving about the country? I mean, it's not like enforcing no-fly zones and sanctions is any LESS of a violation of Iraq's "rights" - if the "rights" of a state like Iraq are even a source of concern to the UN.
Bush (senior) and Clinton after him have really let this issue slide, IMO. It never should have been allowed to come to the point where we are AFRAID to force weapons inspections in Iraq. What a mess.
I am still not understanding why the UN has not FORCED the issue of weapons inspectors - ? Does anyone doubt that Hussein is working to build weapons of mass destruction? Why would the UN not simply drop a few inspectors in with a heavy guard, and start moving about the country? I mean, it's not like enforcing no-fly zones and sanctions is any LESS of a violation of Iraq's "rights" - if the "rights" of a state like Iraq are even a source of concern to the UN.Bush (senior) and Clinton after him have really let this issue slide, IMO. It never should have been allowed to come to the point where we are AFRAID to force weapons inspections in Iraq. What a mess.
-
HighLordDave
- Posts: 4062
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
- Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
- Contact:
I think it has been knocked down on the priority ladder. Clinton never liked the situation in Iraq, neither did the military. Do you remember how hard it was for Generals Colin Powell and Norman Schwartzkopf to keep straight faces when they told us that the Gulf War wasn't about removing Saddam Hussein from power? They could barely contain their anger. Dubya has other priorities and may be waiting to use Iraq as another popular war to keep his public approval numbers up once they start to drop after the current Afghanistan situation.Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG>I am still not understanding why the UN has not FORCED the issue of weapons inspectors - ? </STRONG>
Since it is currently in the hands of Kofi Annan and the UN, we will never get weapons inspectors back on the ground unless Saddam is caught red-handed ("What colour are his hands now?"). Annan is so non-confrontational it's pathetic. I don't think that anyone doubts that Iraq is developing the capacity for weapons of mass destruction (so is North Korea for that matter), but as long as he maintains a low profile, the UN will leave him alone; the US won't provoke him for fear of looking like a bully picking on an arab country that has already been knocked down and endangering our own oil interests.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
There are quite a few knowledgeable people posting in this thread, so let me ask you a question which I mean seriously, without any covert motive.
Why doesn't the US simply agree to the full rehabilitation of Iraq?
If Hussain abides by the conditions of the rules of conduct that govern nations, everybody wins. Iraqi citizens rebuild their infrastructure. Muslim fundamentalists lose one of the two main platforms they had with which to criticize the US. The Iraqi supporters get to say "we told you so" to the US, and we get to smile and see a boost to our private sector in the export of goods and services.
If Hussian launches another attack at a neighbor, we win. We get to say "we told you so" to all our neighbors, and the Muslim fundamentalists suddenly look very, very bad in the eyes of their supporters. We store up brownie points that we can use when a similar situation arises in the future. We suddenly experience a wave of international popularity as we once again put him in his place. And we have a great time doing what Bush Sr should have done a decade or more ago, silencing Hussain's grand ambitions once and for all.
This appears to be a win/win situation for us. In all honesty, why don't you think so?
Why doesn't the US simply agree to the full rehabilitation of Iraq?
If Hussain abides by the conditions of the rules of conduct that govern nations, everybody wins. Iraqi citizens rebuild their infrastructure. Muslim fundamentalists lose one of the two main platforms they had with which to criticize the US. The Iraqi supporters get to say "we told you so" to the US, and we get to smile and see a boost to our private sector in the export of goods and services.
If Hussian launches another attack at a neighbor, we win. We get to say "we told you so" to all our neighbors, and the Muslim fundamentalists suddenly look very, very bad in the eyes of their supporters. We store up brownie points that we can use when a similar situation arises in the future. We suddenly experience a wave of international popularity as we once again put him in his place. And we have a great time doing what Bush Sr should have done a decade or more ago, silencing Hussain's grand ambitions once and for all.
This appears to be a win/win situation for us. In all honesty, why don't you think so?
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Oh, see, I really try to give Presidents the benefit of the doubt in things like this. I NEVER can make myself believe that a man would launch a war to raise his ratings. I had no respect for Clinton, but I couldn't even make myself believe that his missle strikes were an attempt to throw the media off of his personal affairs. Call me naive ...Originally posted by HighLordDave:
<STRONG>I think it has been knocked down on the priority ladder. Clinton never liked the situation in Iraq, neither did the military. Do you remember how hard it was for Generals Colin Powell and Norman Schwartzkopf to keep straight faces when they told us that the Gulf War wasn't about removing Saddam Hussein from power? They could barely contain their anger. Dubya has other priorities and may be waiting to use Iraq as another popular war to keep his public approval numbers up once they start to drop after the current Afghanistan situation.</STRONG>
I'm not all that familiar with the inner workings of the UN, but you make it sound as if Annan has more say than anyone else in this matter - ? I didn't realize he had any great weight in the scheme of things - ? And Annan may be very non-confrontational, but you (and I) are right to point out Hussein's guilt - why does no one understand that further appeasement of tyrants and terrorists is NOT going to make them go away?Originally posted by HighLordDave:
<STRONG>Since it is currently in the hands of Kofi Annan and the UN, we will never get weapons inspectors back on the ground unless Saddam is caught red-handed ("What colour are his hands now?"). Annan is so non-confrontational it's pathetic. I don't think that anyone doubts that Iraq is developing the capacity for weapons of mass destruction (so is North Korea for that matter), but as long as he maintains a low profile, the UN will leave him alone; the US won't provoke him for fear of looking like a bully picking on an arab country that has already been knocked down and endangering our own oil interests.</STRONG>
fable asked for an opinion as to how this may all be resolved - my opinion: destruction of the states that endorse, support, and sponsor terrorism. I think Iraq may be considered in that camp, and I think Hussein's Iraq will need to be eliminated one way or another.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
fable asked for an opinion as to how this may all be resolved - my opinion: destruction of the states that endorse, support, and sponsor terrorism. I think Iraq may be considered in that camp, and I think Hussein's Iraq will need to be eliminated one way or another.
Actually--no, that wasn't what I asked for. I wanted an opinion of why we simply don't agree to rehabilitate Iraq all the way. Here's my post, again:
If Hussain abides by the conditions of the rules of conduct that govern nations, everybody wins. Iraqi citizens rebuild their infrastructure. Muslim fundamentalists lose one of the two main platforms they had with which to criticize the US. The Iraqi supporters get to say "we told you so" to the US, and we get to smile and see a boost to our private sector in the export of goods and services.
If Hussian launches another attack at a neighbor, we win. We get to say "we told you so" to all our neighbors, and the Muslim fundamentalists suddenly look very, very bad in the eyes of their supporters. We store up brownie points that we can use when a similar situation arises in the future. We suddenly experience a wave of international popularity as we once again put him in his place. And we have a great time doing what Bush Sr should have done a decade or more ago, silencing Hussain's grand ambitions once and for all.
This appears to be a win/win situation for us. In all honesty, why don't you think so?
Actually--no, that wasn't what I asked for.
I wanted an opinion of why we simply don't agree to rehabilitate Iraq all the way. Here's my post, again:If Hussain abides by the conditions of the rules of conduct that govern nations, everybody wins. Iraqi citizens rebuild their infrastructure. Muslim fundamentalists lose one of the two main platforms they had with which to criticize the US. The Iraqi supporters get to say "we told you so" to the US, and we get to smile and see a boost to our private sector in the export of goods and services.
If Hussian launches another attack at a neighbor, we win. We get to say "we told you so" to all our neighbors, and the Muslim fundamentalists suddenly look very, very bad in the eyes of their supporters. We store up brownie points that we can use when a similar situation arises in the future. We suddenly experience a wave of international popularity as we once again put him in his place. And we have a great time doing what Bush Sr should have done a decade or more ago, silencing Hussain's grand ambitions once and for all.
This appears to be a win/win situation for us. In all honesty, why don't you think so?
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG>@Fas: Yeah, I kinda think we should have finished him off the first time 'round as well. I am glad to hear that most muslims dislike him. Did you know he called for an 'Arab Summit' on the subject of Isreal/Palestine? Do you think he will actually get anyone to come to his summit? (Sorry, that question is a bit off the thread topic, but I am interested.)</STRONG>
He is all talk and no walk.
Nobody pays attention to him in the Middle East!
And i am staying away from this conversation if you don't mind!
You can pm me for any and all information.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
@fable (though I know you are no longer posting). My reference above (saying that you had asked for a solution to this whole situation) I was not in fact refering to the post that you then re-quote. I was refering to this post:
Your other post, asking about a "rehabilitation" of Iraq, I do not understand. But, since you ain't longer around ...
@all: Here's another [url="http://www.iht.com/articles/42557.html"]article[/url] for your general edification.
As I said: I think Hussein's Iraq will need to be destroyed.Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>What do you all think the probable resolution of Saddam will be? Assuming he doesn't die in the meantime, that is.</STRONG>
Your other post, asking about a "rehabilitation" of Iraq, I do not understand.
But, since you ain't longer around ...@all: Here's another [url="http://www.iht.com/articles/42557.html"]article[/url] for your general edification.