Iraq

[Draken]

Bloody hell is this one STILL rumbling on?

Nice debate but 12 years late. Iraq was quite open about its chemical weapon capability then and there wasn't much debate about their theatre weapons as they were dropping them on Israel at the time. The best time for "the West" (let's generalise it to spare sensitive souls) to get tough on Saddam was when his army was in shreds, the Marsh Arabs were rising in revolt and coalition forces were advancing on Basra.

I as working at a defence establishment at the time and pretty much everyone thought the end to the 1991 war came prematurely. Then it was the leaders of "the West" that meekly claimed they wished to obey the UN resolution to liberate Kuwait and no more. I don't recall there being much concerted pressure on "the West" - there hadn't been time, for starters - but suddenly everyone was keen to slam on the brakes and watch as the falsely encouraged Iraqi rebels were stamped on.

12 years ago blokes with allied armies in Iraq reached for the UN rulebook, played it cautiously and let Saddam be - and were hailed as victors.

Sort of ironic that those same attributes now are being portrayed as the the ultimate in cowardice and ingratitude.

Times change, n'est pa?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Draken
Bloody hell is this one STILL rumbling on?

Nice debate but 12 years late. Iraq was quite open about its chemical weapon capability then and there wasn't much debate about their theatre weapons as they were dropping them on Israel at the time. The best time for "the West" (let's generalise it to spare sensitive souls) to get tough on Saddam was when his army was in shreds, the Marsh Arabs were rising in revolt and coalition forces were advancing on Basra.

I as working at a defence establishment at the time and pretty much everyone thought the end to the 1991 war came prematurely. Then it was the leaders of "the West" that meekly claimed they wished to obey the UN resolution to liberate Kuwait and no more. I don't recall there being much concerted pressure on "the West" - there hadn't been time, for starters - but suddenly everyone was keen to slam on the brakes and watch as the falsely encouraged Iraqi rebels were stamped on.

12 years ago blokes with allied armies in Iraq reached for the UN rulebook, played it cautiously and let Saddam be - and were hailed as victors.

Sort of ironic that those same attributes now are being portrayed as the the ultimate in cowardice and ingratitude.

Times change, n'est pa?

i agree - i wanted the fight to finish it off. if it had - we wouldn't be in todays situation. We wouldn't be playing this cat and mouse game with Saddam Hussein. The reason we backed off was because the European countries were against that action. The Muslim support was going to disolve too.

We allowed the resistence movement within Iraq to think that they could rise up against Hussein and they'd have backing. Instead 50,000 paid with their lives. Then when Hussein kicked out the inspectors - the UN and the world said "oh well". France during this same time - even though Hussein did not comply with a single resolution - has repeatedly called for the lifting of sanctions.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The reason we backed off was because the European countries were against that action. The Muslim support was going to disolve too.

I always heard that the reason we backed off with Iraq that time was because we didn't have a strong plan of what to do if he was gone, were afraid of destabilizing the region and didn't want to keep up a military presence in Iraq.

At that point we had Saddam Hussein's army cornered and could easily have won the war. Whether we had European backing or not at that point, I think, wouldn't have made much difference.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I always heard that the reason we backed off with Iraq that time was because we didn't have a strong plan of what to do if he was gone, were afraid of destabilizing the region and didn't want to keep up a military presence in Iraq.

At that point we had Saddam Hussein's army cornered and could easily have won the war. Whether we had European backing or not at that point, I think, wouldn't have made much difference.

that might have been part of it - but the majority of allies in the coalition were saying that the UN didn't mandate the removal of Hussein. Un only authorised the removal of Iraq from Kuwait. Once that was done - everyone else considered the mission accomplished.

[Dunadan]

The US wasn't bothered about Saddam as long as he toed the line and only killed Kurds and Iranians. In fact, that was his job. They thought he'd learn his lesson and get back to what he was good at after 1991, which he did, hence 12 years of containment.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
The US wasn't bothered about Saddam as long as he toed the line and only killed Kurds and Iranians. In fact, that was his job. They thought he'd learn his lesson and get back to what he was good at after 1991, which he did, hence 12 years of containment.

No that wasn't the case. If you remember what was going on between iran and Iraq during the cold war - then you'd understand. The US was only supporting Hussein because the Soviet Union was supporting Iran. As I have said - the US wanted NEITHER country to become dominate in the region.

And if we wanted him to get on with killing Kurds - do you really think we'd be spending billions protecting them in the north? or protecting the Shi'ites in the south?

[Elvellon]

Yes I did - you just don't want to accept them. You'd rather stick your head in the ground, ignore the problem like Europe generally does - until it becomes too late.

Valid explanation? Then you should have no trouble explaining this:

As you have defended:
Saddan have mass destruction weapons, he have contacts with terrorists, and he is likely to us them, so a war is made to prevent him of using them.

But now comes the incongruent point; if he has the weapons and the will to use them, won’t he use them if attacked?
And if he uses them if attacked, doesn’t that make void the motive for the war, which is supposedly to prevent it?

Not that I’m really expecting an answer to this…

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Valid explanation? Then you should have no trouble explaining this:

As you have defended:
Saddan have mass destruction weapons, he have contacts with terrorists, and he is likely to us them, so a war is made to prevent him of using them.

He might resort to using them on the military - or possibly even his own people (which he doesn't need an excuse to do anyway). But he won't have time to get them out of his country to attack a western country with them. Once he gets them into the hands of someone to attack a western country with them - at that point - he will have enough where an offensive against him will be MUCH MORE expensive in terms of human lives.

But now comes the incongruent point; if he has the weapons and the will to use them, won’t he use them if attacked?
And if he uses them if attacked, doesn’t that make void the motive for the war, which is supposedly to prevent it?

Not that I’m really expecting an answer to this…

Well then I guess you'll be surprised to get an answer.

So in other words - what you are saying is that we should just let him go on developing them until he has enough to actually use them in offensive - instead of a defensive posture where we currently have the upper hand???

The role of the war is to disarm him - if he uses them during the war - he will not have any left and he will be removed from power. We will NOT have to worry about him again in 5 or 10 years like we do now with North Korea.

If something isn't done now - you will be seeing the following in 10 years from Iraq...

N. Korea 'will win nuke war'
SEOUL, South Korea -- In another verbal barrage aimed at Washington, North Korea says it will win any nuclear conflict with the United States thanks to Pyongyang's "army-first" political system.

"Victory in a nuclear conflict will be ours and the red flag of army-first politics will flutter ever more vigorously," a North Korean state radio broadcast said, as reported by South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

"Our victory is certain and the future ever more radiant."

The standoff over North Korea's nuclear weapons program began in October when the U.S. said Pyongyang admitted to secretly pursuing plans to enrich uranium, violating a 1994 agreement.

North Korea then dismissed weapons inspectors, pulled out of the international nuclear anti-proliferation treaty and restarted its nuclear facilities.

You may have to replace the nuclear with biological and chemical - but I actually fear those more than nuclear. Bilogical and chemical can basically be transported in an aresol can.

By the way - your same argument was used with Hitler during WWII. -"Maybe if we let him go - he won't attack us" it didn't work then - and it won't work now.

[Elvellon]

But he won't have time to get them out of his country to attack a western country with them. Once he gets them into the hands of someone to attack a western country with them - at that point - he will have enough where an offensive against him will be MUCH MORE expensive in terms of human lives.

He won’t have? You mean that 13 years are not enough to do it?
Then I suppose we should not bother with him at all, at that speed he won’t do it before he dies of old age.

Well then I guess you'll be surprised to get an answer.

in other words - what you are saying is that we should just let him go on developing them until he has enough to actually use them in offensive - instead of a defensive posture where we currently have the upper hand???

The role of the war is to disarm him - if he uses them during the war - he will not have any left and he will be removed from power. We will NOT have to worry about him again in 5 or 10 years like we do now with North Korea.

If something isn't done now - you will be seeing the following in 10 years from Iraq...

Upper hand? Defensive unconventional war?
JR, those weapons have only one use, and one use alone, dissuasion. If you actually use them against another country, then it always becomes an offensive weapon, and the result is always the same, retaliation and complete destruction.

But you are right in one thing, if you attack and he is as dangerous as you believe you won’t have to worry with him in 5 years, you will have to worry with him now.

For if he do have close contacts with terrorists, and if he is willing to use them that way, then they already have them, and furthermore even after wining the war I bet you won’t find most of what is now currently missing.


As for North Korea, a rather uninspired propaganda speech don’t you think?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
He won’t have? You mean that 13 years are not enough to do it?
Then I suppose we should not bother with him at all, at that speed he won’t do it before he dies of old age.

Oh - that makes a lot of sense. By the way - his son is even worse.

Upper hand? Defensive unconventional war?
JR, those weapons have only one use, and one use alone, dissuasion. If you actually use them against another country, then it always becomes an offensive weapon, and the result is always the same, retaliation and complete destruction.

Yeah - with A LOT MORE human casualities. So you'd rather be reactive than proactive? If Hitler was taken care of when he first moved into France (before he over took Austria) - WWII would have been avoided.

But you are right in one thing, if you attack and he is as dangerous as you believe you won’t have to worry with him in 5 years, you will have to worry with him now.

I'd rather deal with him NOW than try to deal with him when he has developed himself into another NK situation. We will also in the process be freeing the Iraqi people from the torture and death they now face under his regime.

For if he do have close contacts with terrorists, and if he is willing to use them that way, then they already have them, and furthermore even after wining the war I bet you won’t find most of what is now currently missing.

that is not necessarily tru and a very weak argument for going against him. Under that argument I guess we shouldn't be going against anyone. Everyone may use their weapons or supplied them to someone else and once they have - I guess there is just no reason to take action.

As for North Korea, a rather uninspired propaganda speech don’t you think?

It may be propaganda - but it is definitely true. It makes dealing with North Korea much more difficult. What happens if he launches a nuclear bomb across to Japan? Do you recommend that the US launch Nuclear bombs at North Korea? We can - but then it affects China and South Korea. It can launch the entire area into a nuclear conflict.

Also - by your rationale of dealing with Iraq =- I guess we should just let North Korea go. They haven't used their weapons yet. They haven't in FIFTY years - so what makes us think they will now????

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No that wasn't the case. If you remember what was going on between iran and Iraq during the cold war - then you'd understand. The US was only supporting Hussein because the Soviet Union was supporting Iran.

Exactly my point: he was doing what we required of him, so we didn't mind him wiping out Kurds. Maybe if you remember to read the post, then you'd understand.

All these Hitler analogies are utterly bankrupt. Iraq is a total mess, Germany in the late 30s was the second largest economy in the world, with the largest military machine. OK, both Hussein and Hitler are utter bar stewards who deserve to be tied up and shot with a blunderbuss loaded with their own *****e, but that's as far as it goes.

Just because you were 2 years late for that war doesn't mean you need to be early for this one.


cheers

d

By the way, that was a joke

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Exactly my point: he was doing what we required of him, so we didn't mind him wiping out Kurds. Maybe if you remember to read the post, then you'd understand.

You stated that we wanted him to go BACK to killing Iranians and Kurds after 1991.

All these Hitler analogies are utterly bankrupt. Iraq is a total mess, Germany in the late 30s was the second largest economy in the world, with the largest military machine. OK, both Hussein and Hitler are utter bar stewards who deserve to be tied up and shot with a blunderbuss loaded with their own *****e, but that's as far as it goes.

We live in the Twenty-FIRST Century now. You don't need a huge military machine or large economy to do what Hitler did. Osama bin Ladin took down two office buildings which had more business space than all of the city of San Diego. All it took for him to do that was a couple of box cutters and a few plane tickets. maybe you don't realise how big those buildings were - but they had their own zip code. They were basically a city within a city. (And don't tell me that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 because I know that) - I'm just pointing out that in order to do massive damage an d to wage war in todays time - you do NOT need the massive military or economy that Hitler needed.

Look at North Korea - their country is bankrupt - their people are starving. They may have 1 million strong in their military - but we CAN take them out. It gets much more difficult when you are dealing with biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

Again - if you want to use that excuse for Iraq - then why are we worrying about North Korea? It doesn't take much to produce chemical and biological weapons which will cause a LOT MORE civilian casualties than the German Blitzkrieg did during the bombing of London.

Just because you were 2 years late for that war doesn't mean you need to be early for this one.


By the way, that was a joke

I should hope it was since we fought TWO world wars which had NOTHING to do with us in all actuallity. We could have left you deal with Germany and we could have just have concentrated on Japan.

[Elvellon]

Oh - that makes a lot of sense. By the way - his son is even worse.

Yep, I was being ironical (should have used smillies).

that is not necessarily tru and a very weak argument for going against him. Under that argument I guess we shouldn't be going against anyone. Everyone may use their weapons or supplied them to someone else and once they have - I guess there is just no reason to take action

[/quote]
Not what I believe neither, BUT according with the War apologists should be true. After all, they are the ones saying he has the connections with them, and is willing to give those weapons to them. If he has the contacts and the willingness, why wouldn’t he use them? There is a gap in the reasoning there.

It doesn’t make any sense at all that he, having those weapons all this time, and being eager to use them, never deployed them out of the country and tried to blackmail the west against the lifting of the sanctions or for another dark scheme of expansion. In fact, you seem to believe that it isn’t even likely that he, after 9/11 did deployed them, just in case if he got attacked due to his terrorist contacts.

Yeah - with A LOT MORE human casualities. So you'd rather be reactive than proactive? If Hitler was taken care of when he first moved into France (before he over took Austria) - WWII would have been avoided.

I know that, you know that, millions know that, and yet you seem to believe Saddan doesn’t know it or doesn’t care. Well I can’t say he strikes me as being that ignorant, nor does he seem to be the kind to suicide.

Also - by your rationale of dealing with Iraq =- I guess we should just let North Korea go. They haven't used their weapons yet. They haven't in FIFTY years - so what makes us think they will now????

Now that makes me curious, what do you think holds him back?

[Elvellon]

should hope it was since we fought TWO world wars which had NOTHING to do with us in all actuallity. We could have left you deal with Germany and we could have just have concentrated on Japan.

Nothing? You mean that the Nazis and Imperial Japan would leave the US alone?

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You stated that we wanted him to go BACK to killing Iranians and Kurds after 1991.


We live in the Twenty-FIRST Century now. You don't need a huge military machine or large economy to do what Hitler did. Osama bin Ladin took down two office buildings which had more business space than all of the city of San Diego.[/B]

I know. I watched it on the TV. And I wept.

However, I'm glad you mentioned that, because it's another example of how you've got it all wrong over Iraq/Al-Qaida and terrorism. It's a simple fact that you cannot defeat terrorism in a war. By its nature, all you need are a few diehard nutters and they can wreak all manner of devastation. New technologies (always developed by states, by the way) just provide new ways of doing it. They can, and do, hide anywhere.

There are two ways of doing it: having a police state, which worked quite effectively in the Soviet bloc (though how well we probably don't really know), or eroding their support.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Nothing? You mean that the Nazis and Imperial Japan would leave the US alone?

Well except for Japan - they hadn't attacked us. So why should we get involved? You're saying we should wait until Saddam Hussein actually does something before doing anything.

I should remind you that Slobodan Milosevic didn't attack any other countries. His attrocities could have been contained within his country possibly. We can never know. Maybe we should have waited longer to take action against him. Wait until he ACTUALLY attacked another country.

[Erawyn]

Someone in the government who is saying something....

War: The Most Horrible Human Experience
Senator Robert Byrd, AlterNet
February 17, 2003
Viewed on February 17, 2003

U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) made the following statement on the floor of the Senate on Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2003.


To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.


Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.


We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.


And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.


This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list.


High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.


Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.


This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

[Erawyn]

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.


In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.


Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.


The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.


Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?


And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?


Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?


Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?


In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.


One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.


But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

[Erawyn]

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50 percent is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.


To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country." This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.


Sorry this was so long, but I think it's a really great speech, and basically I agree with everything in it, and my guess is a lot of other people do too.... It would be great if someone would listen to this guy!

[jerseydevil]

Too bad there has been discussion - incuding Congress overwhelmingly giving the president authorization to use force against Iraq.

He may not like what the majority of the Senate feels - but that is his problem. The "non-supporters" are in the minority in Congress.