Should Saddam be toppled?

[KrazyHorse]

Maybe. Don't know if they'd "waste" it on you, though. I'd say New York or Washington if it's a non-State organisation that does it, New Delhi or Islamabad if it is a nation. Only worries you have are from actors like Syria, who might actually be capable of some feeling for self-preservation. It might even be possible to keep a lid on the Iraq situation...

[KrazyHorse]

Reason I don't think that Tel Aviv's getting it from a terrorist is that the guerilla groups you're dealing with aren't exactly the most well-equipped or organised. You need a bit of time and space to build one of those bad boys, and large amounts of fissile materials tend to give off some tell-tales...

My money's on an Al-Qaeda type organisation operating out of Malysia or Indonesia, shipping it to the US.

[Az]

The only source I am afraid of is Iran. The logistics of such an operation would be way too large for a local group , and Israeli HUMINT would be on it in no time. Iran is a different matter. Reaching the is difficult , at best, and multiple sites are there.

You can imagine that news of Israel having a "second strike" capability from submarines don't really reassure me , in the case of a country like that. Regardless of what people say about their 'moderate' political leadership , which is doubtful to me as well, their military leaders are Muslim fanatics of the most dangerous kind, way out there .

In other happy news, Iran is already working on the development of Shihab 4, that will be able to reach europe, despite EU requests that it won't do so. What are the European scientists doing there?!

[Ned]

Appease Saddam! Ask him what he wants, pretty please, so that he doesn't use WoMD on us. Does he want money? Give it to him. Does he want Kuwait? He's got it. Does he want Kurdistan? Why, by all means. Does he want to destroy Israel? Well, he can try, but we won't interfere.

Once he has all of the above, of course he will have no further "territorial" demands. We will have "peace in our time."

Where have I heard that one before?

[DaShi]

Can't we just put a tack in his seat?

[David Floyd]

In other happy news, Iran is already working on the development of Shihab 4, that will be able to reach europe, despite EU requests that it won't do so. What are the European scientists doing there?!

And several nations have missiles that can reach Iran, including, I believe, Israel (a nation that has proven it has no qualms against first strikes), so why shouldn't Iran have similar weapons? And why is it any of your business?
And if the Europeans ***** about that, maybe they should sign on to the US ABM project, eh?

[Eli]

Originally posted by David Floyd


And several nations have missiles that can reach Iran, including, I believe, Israel (a nation that has proven it has no qualms against first strikes), so why shouldn't Iran have similar weapons? And why is it any of your business?
And if the Europeans ***** about that, maybe they should sign on to the US ABM project, eh?

It's not a matter of rights, but of interests.

Imagine the following situation :
Fidel Castro declares(and gets the support of his people) that he wants the US destroyed. And then starts developing nuclear weapons saying that in the moment he gets them, they will be fired on Florida.

Will the US allow him to continue developing the weapons because he has the right to do so, or will you do everything possible to stop him?

[Az]

you're asking the wrong man , Eli.

[Eli]

Yes, I know.

He'd wait for 2 million dead in Florida and then kill 10 million in Cuba. It's the right thing to do.

[Q Classic]

YEAH! LET'S CAP THAT SUCKA!

kill saddam, and we have no problems. we don't need no stinkin' causus belli.

(of course, this means that any country who thinks our leadership poses a threat to them can be justified in trying to take out our chain of command, without causus belli, but rather based on past precedent... but that's besides the point)

[Urban Ranger]

IIRC, every country have plans to attack every other country. Or something like that. It doesn't mean these plans will ever be carried out.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
As it stands, the United States would be in violation of international law in any attempt to oust Saddam. We currently have no provocation. We have to let him make the first move.

In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait. In 1991 the US drove the Iraqi army from Kuwait, and was on the verge of destroying the Republican Guard, the base of Saddams regime. Instead the US signed a ceasefire, one of the conditions of which was UN inspections of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction(this was also called for by the UN Sec Council) So Iraq is under a legal obligation to allow inspections for WMD that goes beyond the obligations of other states under international law, an obligation that goes back to the circumstance under which the gulf war ended. Iraq is (and has been for 4 years) in blatant disregard of its obligations re" weapons inspection. The US has every right to whatever is necessary to physically impose an inspection system. Given that such inspection is unlikely to be effective under the current Iraqi regime (for reasons well documented elsewhere) this entails the right to change the Iraqi regime.

The reasons not to go yet are practical and global balance questions, not legal ones. For example, Iraq has a substantial debt to Russia. Russia must be given iron clad guarantees for this debt. France has a traditional economic/political sphere of influence in Iraq. It rightly fears that any successor regime will favor US interests over French interests. The US must assure France that this is not part of a plan to impose US economic hegemony in place of French interests - US concessions on other areas (like steel tariffs) would help. The turks need assurance that this will not result in independent Kurdistan - the Iraqi Kurds want an Autonomous kurdistan within a democratic, federal Iraq, but the political shape of the successor regime must be fleshed out - ditto wrt to Saudi and the Iraqi Shiites. All parties in the region, but most especially the Kurds, must be assured that the US means business. No point in alienating Saddam unless the US can assure them he wont be there much longer.

LOTM

[SlowwHand]

What we need to have is a betting pool. Date and time.
Forgot, not allowed.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It is not the right of the US to topple Saddam. It is the right of the Iraq people to do that. They asked for our help and we let them get slaughtered. Now if we go in, they aren't going to lift a finger to help us.

That we let the Kurds and Shiites (and perhaps some Sunni arabs as well?) get slaughtered in april/may of 1991 is a shame on our country, one we have yet to live down. The kurds in particular will be very reluctant to lift a finger for us, until they see US boots on the ground. Once they do however, I believe they will put their desire for a federal, democratic Iraq above their resmentment of past US perfidy. Their current autonomous zone is precarious as long as Saddam remains in power.


LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


International Law, International Shmaw. We shouldn't wait for him to build up his WMD arsenal or hinder US efforts in anyway. Especially if we don't actively go to war, our Allies will make no serious reaction if Saddam is removed.

We have full justification under International Law. There is no need to undermine our case. That most Americans arent aware of our case, is do to the incompetent public diplomacy of the Bush administration, not to any weakness in our case against Iraq.

LOTM