Things Bush apparently doesn't need to attack Iraq

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

Becuase my hatred of the Bush admin is bottomless. If it were not for the Buchanan presdency, I would already nominate this admin. for post of worst ever.

You werent here for Carter then

I dont disagree with most of your comments, but I 'd like to point out that its not the American conservatives alone who adhere to these simplistic viewpoints. For the most part of the 20th and now 21st centuries, the US has never had a consistent rational approach to foreign policy (and it probably never will).

[GePap]

I will grant you SpencerH that American liberals are usually just as intellectually gutless as conservatives. The diference is that liberals are intellectually gutless pacifists, so they don't start wars with their ignorance.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap
I will grant you SpencerH that American liberals are usually just as intellectually gutless as conservatives. The diference is that liberals are intellectually gutless pacifists, so they don't start wars with their ignorance.

Except when action could prevent a larger conflict.

[GePap]

Thats were we disagree. I don't see Saddam starting any conflicts at all, or getting involved. Saddam is the type of man that does things only when they benefit him or his power- getting involved in anything right now is of no help whatsoever for Saddam, hence, he will not get involved.

In this sense, it is the administration that is aminig to create a new conflict out of thin air, to satisfy its ideological stance, not any real threat to American power or Hegemony in the region.

[SpencerH]

I was commenting on

The diference is that liberals are intellectually gutless pacifists, so they don't start wars with their ignorance.

in a general way rather than specifically refering to Iraq.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap
Thats were we disagree. I don't see Saddam starting any conflicts at all, or getting involved. Saddam is the type of man that does things only when they benefit him or his power- getting involved in anything right now is of no help whatsoever for Saddam, hence, he will not get involved.

Thats relatively true today, but how do you predict when it will be in his interest? And if he holds a tactical/intermediate range nuclear weapon it will be much harder to deal with whatever schemes he dreams up to stabilize his rule. Dont forget that Israel WILL act unilaterally. If he gets too frisky, they are more likely than we to nuke his ass. What would the consequences of that action be for America?

In this sense, it is the administration that is aminig to create a new conflict out of thin air, to satisfy its ideological stance, not any real threat to American power or Hegemony in the region.

Now thats an over simplification of your own. The conflict is not "out of thin air" it exists in reality. What is an appropriate response to the conflict is the question.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Thats relatively true today, but how do you predict when it will be in his interest? And if he holds a tactical/intermediate range nuclear weapon it will be much harder to deal with whatever schemes he dreams up to stabilize his rule. Dont forget that Israel WILL act unilaterally. If he gets too frisky, they are more likely than we to nuke his ass. What would the consequences of that action be for America?

There isn't one scenerio which my mind can create that has Saddam act much more differently with Nuclear weapons than with. Nuclear weapons make great defensive chips, but lousy offensive ones. How come China doesn't use the nuke card to scare Taiwan back in? Trying to use nukes as an offensive weapon fails utterly when anyone else involved, like us or Israel, ahs them. By the way, that also applies to israel. If an when Saddam got nuke s(this is assuming ever) then this will constrain Israeli action. If we can't pinpoint all the sites, the Israel can't either, so they would have no way of knwoing if any action they took would take out Saddams arsenal. This then leave shtme open to nuclear counterattack vs. Tel Aviv. Israel would survive, but the cost would be attoricous. And its not like Israel could invade Iraq. Israel' economy could not handle the prolonged reservist call up of such a magnitude that that would entail. So, personally, I can;t come up with a rational and rasonable scenerio in which Saddam getting nukes makes hi8m more able to act offensively, as muchas it does increase his ablity to ward of enemies to him internally and from the outside/

Now thats an over simplification of your own. The conflict is not "out of thin air" it exists in reality. What is an appropriate response to the conflict is the question.

We have had 'conflict' with Iraq since 1990, but threatening a full scale war is a brand new escalation that has nothing to do with any sort of increased action on the Iraqi side. This is why I call it coming out of 'thin air'

[Jaakko]

Dino,

I replied to you earlier on your question, but it was swamped by the flame-spammers:

Originally posted by Jaakko
Dino, I think it's the War Powers Act or some such, allowing the prez to make war for 60 days w/o congressional approval. I believe it was done to ensure that a political struggle wouldn't cripple the country's ability to defend itself.

Edit for a link:

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

[Urban Ranger]

I am still waiting for the hawks to come up with any evidence at all.

All I have seen are a lot of screaming and bald assertions.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


There isn't one scenerio which my mind can create that has Saddam act much more differently with Nuclear weapons than with. Nuclear weapons make great defensive chips, but lousy offensive ones.

So, personally, I can;t come up with a rational and rasonable scenerio in which Saddam getting nukes makes hi8m more able to act offensively, as muchas it does increase his ablity to ward of enemies to him internally and from the outside/

I didnt suggest that nucs improve his offensive capabilities. Since Israel already holds nuclear weapons we might assume that its a theatre-level standoff. Two problems though. As you've said his possesion of them (and the threat of their use) adds to his defensive capabilities. Would we, and our "allies", have had the political will to liberate Kuwait in the face of a limited nuclear war? Its questionable! Secondly, can we think of no scenario where either Sad-ie or one of his minions (this is a parallel to our own fears of a ballistic missile sub commander who "loses it") decides its in their interest to use these weapons? This question takes us back to the typical western intel analyses of other cultures; we assume that they will do what we would do!

Clearly, we are better off if Iraq (or most other countries) does not join the "nuclear club". The question is what price are we willing to pay to stop their acquiring them?