CIA: Iraq not a threat to U.S. unless provoked.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Industrial base can be bought. They don't live in tents and ride into war on camels.

Had Saddam done what he could have, then announced he was just knocking off monarchies and instituting arabist reform and created a bunch of Baathist proxies, (hell, even do the old commie trick of holding elections ) then announced "we're ready to sell you oil" the west would have been far more fractured.

Saddam mishandled the best opportunity for megalomania since the collapse of the Soviet empire.

Besides, you don't need to manufacture weapons, you just trade oil for them.

[Arrian]

Well, in any case, he did mishandle his opportunity. He didn't continue onward after Kuwait. His forces were then crushed by the coalition. Again, in what way was his aggression appeased?

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
Bull****. Saddam, had he been smart enough to realize what was coming, could have been in Riyadh, and all the way down the arab side of the gulf, occupying every major port that was later used as a logistics base against him. Saddam could have done this before *anyone* could have stopped him.


Why didn't he?

If he was as powerhungry and had this all-consuming desire to subjecate the entire mid east as some people would have you believe why didn't he when he had the chance?

He didn't think there would be a serious response, and once he successfully subjegated one little pest, all the others would fall into line. Saddam was apparently all surprised as hell about an Arab-western coalition, and Saddam's window of opportunity to act was only a matter of about 3 weeks before enough airpower was in theater to disrupt supply lines - at that point, he still could have taken Riyadh, but not gone far enough down the coast.

From his early diplomatic moves in the Arab League, Saddam seemed to think he could outmaneuver the west diplomatically and take advantage of generally poor US-arab relationships.

What he intended to accomplish, who knows? You'd have to ask him. What he could have accomplished is another thing entirely, and also consistent with the Baath party principles of forcefully uniting the arab world under one great leader.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Besides, you don't need to manufacture weapons, you just trade oil for them.

It would fall prey to Japan's problem, no natural resources (other than oil). Even if he could build an industrial base it would take decades. Even then he would be at the mercy of a blockade once a war began. It's simply a flight of fantasy to compare Iraq with Germany or Japan. Fascist Romania would be more apt.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian
Well, in any case, he did mishandle his opportunity. He didn't continue onward after Kuwait. His forces were then crushed by the coalition. Again, in what way was his aggression appeased?

-Arrian

Who said anything about appeasing? I'm simply talking about proactively eliminating *******s who have a disproportionate threat/usefulness ratio.

[chequita guevara]

Can we proactviely eliminate this Adminstration?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Arrian
Chris,

OK, so you do not believe that might makes right. Fine. Then explain again to me how the United States of America has the right to tell other nations whether they can or cannot have WoMDs?

This is a misconception of the Bush postion.
He fears Iraq will either use such weapons (it was, on it's own people) or deliver them to a terror group for usage vs the US, and I agree, that is a real and present danger.
In fact, I find it rather childish that people strech that into the US saying whom can't and can have such weapons, the only ones doing that are the anti-war side.

I fail to understand how we have the right to dictate who can have what. If we were to unilaterally destroy our entire WoMD stockpiles, my opinion would be different - then we would be leading by example... trying to close Pandora's box again. But we're not doing that. We're saying "do as we say, not as we do." But we're only saying it to countries like Iraq. We dare not say it to China or Russia because we can't back it up with force, and we won't say it to our friends and allies because... well, they're our friends and allies and we don't mind it if they have WoMD.

Again, it's about SADDAM not being allowed to have them, not everyone.

So it comes down to anyone who opposes the US will not be allowed to have WoMD? Who died and appointed us Policeman of the World?

-Arrian

Anyone who ATTACKS us is more in order, and supporting terror is sure as hell in vein with attacking us.

In my opinion, your argumant along these lines are invalid, as they do not represent the reasons Bush gave for action against Iraq, NOT ONCE has he said we will attack people because they have WMD.

NOT ONCE.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It would fall prey to Japan's problem, no natural resources (other than oil). Even if he could build an industrial base it would take decades. Even then he would be at the mercy of a blockade once a war began. It's simply a flight of fantasy to compare Iraq with Germany or Japan. Fascist Romania would be more apt.

Damn, you people are slipping. Guess this one sailed over your heads.

Let me clarify.

I'm not comparing Saddam to Addi or Hideki-kun. I'm comparing the mentality of the world views, in which we take a "who cares what he develops, we'll ignore it until he actually sticks it up our ass" mentality, vs. a proactive mentality.

Anyone in the early 30's who argued for dealing proactively with Hitler and Japanese militarists was considered a carpet-chewing, raving, moon-howling, bloodthirsty warmonger.

If we'd gunned the bastards before they got untracked, it would have saved the world a lot of problems, and the USSR would have imploded far earlier, saving the world far more problems.

My point of disagreement with Bushie and the chickenhawks (which I think puts me pretty much on Powell's position), is that it's not a question of whether Saddam should be handled, but a question of how, under what excuse for authority, and with what degree of outside support?

My only long-term strategic concern is with post-Saddam government building, because I see that as a minefield, where true democracy is appealing to nobody (piss off our lackey monarchs, and so the seeds for a popular Shiite fundie revolution via the ballot-box.), and no other real solution has promise, except for being less worse than Saddam & Son Salvage. (Condie Rice can take the role of Aunt Esther I like her as ambassador to Iraq )

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Can we proactviely eliminate this Adminstration?

In November 2004.

[Arrian]

Does "Remember, this is the guy who tried to kill my Dad" count as a reason given for the war?

But seriously, folks...

Iraq has not attacked us. There is no evidence that they have assisted Al Quaida in any way. If there was, we damn sure would have heard about it, and the USAF would already be bombing the living hell out of Baghdad.

As for the WoMD question - Bush has been harping on Saddam's possession of those weapons. That, coupled with the assertion that Saddam is evil, appears to be his main point. I agree that he thinks (or is attempt to convince us) that Saddam's possession of WoMD is a clear and present danger to the US. I just don't think so.

Again, it's about SADDAM not being allowed to have them, not everyone.

Sorry, I think we had a semantic misunderstanding: What gives the US the right to determine what weapons anyone, as opposed to everyone can or cannot have?

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
What gives the US the right to determine what weapons anyone, as opposed to everyone can or cannot have?

Victory in the Gulf War.

[Arrian]

MtG,

Actually, now that you've laid out your position, I have to say it's one that I'm largely ok with. My problem is with a unilateral attack on Iraq with what appears to be ZERO planning for the aftermath (read: nationbuilding, Bush's least favorite thing).

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Arrian - don't get me wrong, I still want to thump his ass, I just want to do it under a clearly defined scenario, with adequate political support and a clear vision of what is the desired end-result.

I don't see all the ingredients being there yet. Yet being the key word. Let the inspectors do their thing, let Saddam do his, then grab the UN by the balls and force them to man up and call Saddam on it for once.

Get the forces in place to do the job with maximum effect, get psysh warfare in full gear, inducing that surrender and defection frenzy like last time, and lever Saddam's ass out of power. But! (key word here) do it with some clearly articulated vision of what we want to see in a post-Saddam Iraq.

Then, when we've got our **** together, act. Not before.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Arrian - don't get me wrong, I still want to thump his ass, I just want to do it under a clearly defined scenario, with adequate political support and a clear vision of what is the desired end-result.

I don't see all the ingredients being there yet. Yet being the key word. Let the inspectors do their thing, let Saddam do his, then grab the UN by the balls and force them to man up and call Saddam on it for once.

Get the forces in place to do the job with maximum effect, get psysh warfare in full gear, inducing that surrender and defection frenzy like last time, and lever Saddam's ass out of power. But! (key word here) do it with some clearly articulated vision of what we want to see in a post-Saddam Iraq.

Then, when we've got our **** together, act. Not before.

I agree.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It would fall prey to Japan's problem, no natural resources (other than oil). Even if he could build an industrial base it would take decades. Even then he would be at the mercy of a blockade once a war began. It's simply a flight of fantasy to compare Iraq with Germany or Japan. Fascist Romania would be more apt.

Che, of course Saddam cannot fight a war like did Germany or Japan. He is no threat to actually conquer the United States or any industrialized nation. He can, however, conquer or force to submit anyone in the ME using the mass accumulation of WoMD. Even Israel may surrender if Saddam acquired the means to destroy Israel entirely.

Now all of this might be quite academic were it not for three things: Our allies in the region, including Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia; Oil; and Saddam’s history of actually using WoMD in aggressive wars. So our interests are involved even though our existence is not threatened.

In a sense, the situation here is not unlike our wars against the pirates of the Barbary Coast in the early 1800’s. The pirates could hurt us when our ships ventured near the Mediterranean, but they had no real prospect of conquering the United States. Still we engaged in war with them until piracy stopped. In fact, until we struck back, England and France and everyone else simply paid the pirates an enormous tribute. It was the U.S. that gave them backbone to fight back as well.

Here is a link:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/mtjhtml/mtjprece.html