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

[Arrian]

Chris,

Saddam is a nasty SOB, I know, but I don't agree with calling him a lunatic. Was Stalin a lunatic? He was a nasty SOB who had nukes.

I agree that nuking Iraq would be a crime against humanity, but that's what the principle of MAD works on - the assumption that if you nuke your opponent, they will nuke you back. You are saying this does not apply to Saddam. Why? Because you think he's nuts?

I do agree that Hamas is a terror group. It was my understanding that the Iraqi government was paying money to suicide bomber's families. Is that what you are talking about, or are you saying that he is directly funding Hamas operations? If so, where did that info come from?

Marcus - shut up you nasty little troll.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

More nitpicking

Originally posted by David Floyd
The US has funded various organizations in the past as well, including Saddam's regime, the Mudjahedin who became the Taliban, and various other militaristic anti-democracy forces around the world.

The Mudjahedin aren't the Taliban. If anything, they'd be the Northern Alliance. If you insist on listing US crimes, at least do us the coutesy of listing the correct ones.

[David Floyd]

Fine. The point I was making is that the US has funded terrorist organizations as well, to say nothing of authoritarian regimes.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Arrian
Chris,
Saddam is a nasty SOB, I know, but I don't agree with calling him a lunatic. Was Stalin a lunatic? He was a nasty SOB who had nukes.

Stalin is of a different world, and a different time.
He was paranoid, and prone to killing close friends, so lunatic may well describe him, but he would never provoke the US so blatently as a Saddam would.
Terrorists are most akin to small evil children, who try to hurt and see what they can get away with, and have no reguard of civilized behavior.
I believe Saddam falls into this catigory, he may believe he's the Islamic most able to weild a global islamic sword, and one fine day begin by nuking Israel.

I agree that nuking Iraq would be a crime against humanity, but that's what the principle of MAD works on - the assumption that if you nuke your opponent, they will nuke you back. You are saying this does not apply to Saddam. Why? Because you think he's nuts?

The MAD concept was intended as a last resort, both the US and USSR never considered a limited nuclear war, but a full scale exchange, and since both sides were rational, it thankfully never happened.
I don't see that restraint with Saddam, but what would killing 5 million Iraqis net us if say, NY were destroyed?
Certainly it would disturb many people in the extreme, but would not a conventional invasion followed by the fall of Saddam be a better opition then obliteraing millions of humans to prove a point?

I do agree that Hamas is a terror group. It was my understanding that the Iraqi government was paying money to suicide bomber's families. Is that what you are talking about, or are you saying that he is directly funding Hamas operations? If so, where did that info come from?

I was referring to the family thing, yes.

Marcus - shut up you nasty little troll.

Saved me the trouble.

[David Floyd]

he would never provoke the US so blatently as a Saddam would.

You have it backwards. We have been provoking Iraq ever since the Gulf War.

both the US and USSR never considered a limited nuclear war

Actually, I believe that NATO envisioned and planned for the US of tactical nuclear weapons against Soviet breakthroughs and bridgeheads in Germany. Can't provide a source for this, but I'm pretty positive about it.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by David Floyd You have it backwards. We have been provoking Iraq ever since the Gulf War.

The Gulf War never ended Floyd, they signed a stipulated cease-fire, which Saddam has broken ever since.
You can't "provoke" a war which never ended.

Actually, I believe that NATO envisioned and planned for the US of tactical nuclear weapons against Soviet breakthroughs and bridgeheads in Germany. Can't provide a source for this, but I'm pretty positive about it.

And it was feared that this would lead to a full scale nuclear exchange, it was the heart of the European "no nukes" movement of the 80s, Reagan wanted to deploy IMBM in Europe and make battlefield nukes standard procedure, and Europe (Germany especially) wanted no part of this, and I supported the movement also.
Nukes will kill us all if they are used.

[Saint Marcus]

Marcus - shut up you nasty little troll.

why? cause I'm right? The US opposes an international court that may try Americans who commited warcrimes. The Americans don't want their warcriminals to be prosecuted. And we all know the US commited warcimes. Just look at Vietnam, which is the most obvious example. But also various (cia) ops in loads of south american countries, assasinations of foreign leaders, backing anti-democratic coups, etc. Kissinger is wanted by two countries for alleged warcrimes, yet the US lets him walk free. Don't even try to make it seem like the US is a peaceloving nation, who wouldn't think of commiting warcrimes if it suited it's needs. The US has commited warcrimes on numerous occasions, and judging by their oposal of the ICC, they'll continue to do so.

[David Floyd]

The Gulf War never ended Floyd, they signed a stipulated cease-fire, which Saddam has broken ever since.
You can't "provoke" a war which never ended.

Oh excuse me. The US entered a conflict that was none of our business. Killed 100,000+ Iraqis, destroyed billions of dollars worth of Iraqi equipment, invaded Iraq, and forced them through superior force to do whatever we wanted. Now they're trying to regain their sovereignty, and we're getting all pissy

[David Floyd]

Furthermore, Chris, we were never legally at war, since we never legally declared war. Therefore, it can be stated that the war never actually started, it was just the Executive Branch usurping Congress' exclusive powers in order to kill people.

[Chris 62]

Oh excuse me. The US entered a conflict that was none of our business. Killed 100,000+ Iraqis, destroyed billions of dollars worth of Iraqi equipment, invaded Iraq, and forced them through superior force to do whatever we wanted. Now they're trying to regain their sovereignty, and we're getting all pissy

In your opinion, a known isolationist.

Furthermore, Chris, we were never legally at war, since we never legally declared war. Therefore, it can be stated that the war never actually started, it was just the Executive Branch usurping Congress' exclusive powers in order to kill people.

Tell it to the UN, it was their idea.

[David Floyd]

In your opinion, a known isolationist.

How is the fact that we killed over 100,000 Iraqis, destroyed billions of dollars worth of equipment, invaded Iraq, and forced them to do what we wanted through superior force my opinion? Those things are facts.

Granted, it's my opinion that it was none of our business, but that is the only opinion in that segment of my post. Furthermore, it's the only opinion that makes logical sense.

Tell it to the UN, it was their idea.

The UN can't give the US Executive Branch permission to violate the Constitution.

[Chris 62]

Write your congressmen Floyd.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

I know Ned is in favor if international interventionalism regardless of threats to national interests or security, but I wonder if others who supported the war can continue to do so now?

I can't be the only one here, though, that supports Bill Clinton's intervention in Kosovo. It was simply the right thing to do regardless of whether Kosovo had any oil, etc. Kissinger's criticism of Bill Clinton's intervention were entirely correct - the US had no strategic interest in intervention, yet still the past genocidal record of Milosovic and his barbarian generals compelled Clinton to act.

[David Floyd]

Write your congressmen Floyd.

Just because Congress is complicit in violating the Constitution doesn't make those violations Constitutional.

[Arrian]

Chris,

Your turn on responding to Marcus. I don't have the energy.

I guess our disagreement comes down to 2 things:

1) You do think Saddam is insane - or at least irrational enough to actually use WoMD against us (or give to terrorists for use against us). I don't.
2) You seem to think that might makes right. I don't.

Let me ask you this: If Saddam lets the UN weapons inspectors back in and complies with their requests and basically plays by the rules, do you still think we should invade and change the regime? I ask that because it sure seems that Bush & Co. are hell bent on invading and regime change no matter what happens with the WoMD inspection issue.

-Arrian