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

[monkspider]

Yep, damn those no good mexican aggressors Ned!
Of course The Indians were the first “aggressors” who had to be faced in our celebration of freedom, the definition of “aggressor” being “that we attacked them”, to be followed by the Mexicans as you mentioned, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Nicaraguans, and many others.

[Ned]

Manifest Destiny forever!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Hmm, then I'm afraid I don't see how you can oppose destroying Baghdad if Iraq uses WoMD's against us first

The net effect of using the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to bring an immediate end to a war which would have dragged on for another year or two, more than doubled US casualties in the entire war in both theaters, and resulted in the deaths from both direct and indirect causes (famine, disease) of at least ten to twenty times the number of Japanese as were killed by the bombs and their acute aftereffects.

Nuking Baghdad would serve no such utility of purpose, especially when you consider that the Iraqi soldier's penchant for surrendering is almost as strong as was the Japanese soldier's penchant for fanatical resistance to the death.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd


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.

Did you count the bodies? Because sure as **** nobody else did. Shake and bake stinks after a while.

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.

Our business is pretty much whatever we make it. Nothing says we have to kiss the worlds' ass or ask permission.

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

The executive branch didn't. Congress gave us permission to go play.

[Roland]

"it's dangerous naveite' to assume that all the US government is, is a pack of lying cuttroats."

It's dangerous not to assume that as a starting premise.

"Nothing says we have to kiss the worlds' ass or ask permission."

For what ?

About that Tenet quote:

"there is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the United States or our allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues to build"

Did he really say "deterrence" as in "Measures taken by a state or an alliance of states to prevent hostile action by another state" ?

Amazing outburst of honesty.

[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?

Let us review the facts:

1) The United States has a massive stockpile of WoMD (largest in the world? probably)
2) Many of our friends and allies do too, including Israel (which as I understand it does so in violation of UN resolutions)
3) The United States has used 2 nuclear weapons in the past, destroying the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whatever the justification, it WAS done.
4) Iraq has WoMD stockpiles - chemical and biological weapons. It does not as yet have nukes, but sure would like to have 'em.
5) Iraq has used chemical weapons during its war with Iran, and IIRC, against rebellious Kurds in the north.
6) Iraq has no missle system capable of delivering any of its WoMD to targets in the United States. The only method available to them would be to provide terrorists with the weapons. Iraq does, however, have the ability to hit Israel.

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.

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

[SpencerH]

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?

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.

I think this is where the American-British position has been misunderstood (perhaps deliberately by some). This situation is not about whether Iraq has WMD, but whether they might actually use them to achieve political ends. I agree with GePap, Sad-ie has not acted in an insane or irrational manner. Thus, it is unlikely that Iraq itself would overtly use such weapons today (who knows what a senile Sad-ie would do though). It is more likely that Iraq would pass the weapons to terrorists who would provide a covert means to achieve the same ends. The question then becomes can we envision a scenario where it might benefit Sad-ie to pass such weapons to terrorists. Given that its not an impossibility that such a scenario might exist, the solutions are to either change the regime, or to destroy the weapons. Either solution works fine for me. Ignoring the risk today when we can do something about it simply increases the chances of its occurance in the future.

[DaShi]

Nonsense, everyone deserves to have nuclear weapons. If Israel has nukes so should Iraq. If the US has nukes so should India.

[Roland]

"This situation is not about whether Iraq has WMD, but whether they might actually use them to achieve political ends."

Then Pakistan should be top of the hitlist.

[DinoDoc]

Justice is an advantage of the strong

Originally posted by Arrian
OK, so you do not believe that might makes right.

In international relations, might often does make right.

[uh Clem]

SpencerH:
You could make the same argument about other nuclear powers.

If Israel could give nukes to Islamic fundalmentalists in the US with, say, at least a 98% chance of not being detected, would they do it?

In answering that question, keep in mind that any answer that is not an immediate and unequivocal No is in effect a Yes.

And by "Israel," I don't necessarily mean the Israeli government. It could just as well mean the pro-transfer, red heiffer, God-promised-us-everything-from-the-Nile-to-the-Euphrates nutcases.

If you think that's anti-Semitic, then substitute "India" for "Israel." Given the well documented violence and end-times rhetoric of Hindu nationalists, it might even be a better example.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Roland
"This situation is not about whether Iraq has WMD, but whether they might actually use them to achieve political ends."

Then Pakistan should be top of the hitlist.

Depending on future directions their regimes take they may end up on it. For now the government does not appear to support terrorist activities (outside of India). In any case, the fact the Pakistan has the bomb alters how (whether) we can effectively deal with them should they become more unfriendly to the west. That situation is what needs to be prevented with Iraq.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by uh Clem
SpencerH:
You could make the same argument about other nuclear powers.

If Israel could give nukes to Islamic fundalmentalists in the US with, say, at least a 98% chance of not being detected, would they do it?

In answering that question, keep in mind that any answer that is not an immediate and unequivocal No is in effect a Yes.

And by "Israel," I don't necessarily mean the Israeli government. It could just as well mean the pro-transfer, red heiffer, God-promised-us-everything-from-the-Nile-to-the-Euphrates nutcases.

If you think that's anti-Semitic, then substitute "India" for "Israel." Given the well documented violence and end-times rhetoric of Hindu nationalists, it might even be a better example.

Jewish fundamentalists giving nukes to Islamic fundamentalists?

Building a bomb essentially requires state support. While there may be lunatics in every country that would happily bring a bomb here the point is that the governments who control the weapons dont hand em over, and are not likely to do so. That may not be the case with Iraq, and I'm not willing to take the chance. I would feel the same way if Libya or Syria (for example) embarked on large scale production of WMD.

[Roland]

"For now the government does not appear to support terrorist activities (outside of India)."

Well neither does Iraq support much foreign terrorism, except against Israel.

"That situation is what needs to be prevented with Iraq."

Pretty close. The only reason for war that makes sense is keeping the middle east safe for US intervention.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Roland
"For now the government does not appear to support terrorist activities (outside of India)."

Well neither does Iraq support much foreign terrorism, except against Israel.

Except that according to the government there is growing evidence that Iraq does support Al Queda. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-60557328.htm