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

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
I have stated that I don't think we have the right to tell other countries what weapons they can and cannot have,

We won that right wrt Iraq as a spoil of war. Disarmament was a condition specifically put in the cease-fire/peace treaty and accepted by Iraq.

Bush & Co. couldn't care less about the UN.

Well, duh. However, it does make for a good excuse from which to build a coalition.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Ned
The way to resolve it is for Saddam to stop playing games and to allow unfettered UN inspections. The only way this will happen is if Saddam knows he has no real alternative.

So you agree that war isn't the unique solution ?

To force Sadaam to obey to UN resolution by the threat of a war, is a good point. Attacking Iracq whatever Saddam accept or refuse it, it is an error.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior


Your not the country which intelligent service officially announced that they may lie and forward misinformations if the interest of the nation claims it ??

Disinformation is a method used by intelligence agencies. In this case, however, high ranking government officials are saying it. While they too may be lying (or have been lied to) they would eventually pay a high price for telling those lies.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior


So you agree that war isn't the unique solution ?

To force Sadaam to obey to UN resolution by the threat of a war, is a good point. Attacking Iracq whatever Saddam accept or refuse it, it is an error.

I certainly agree that our involvement in a war should not be a unique solution. The better solution would be the immediate end of Sad-ie's regime. The problem is how would we do that? Its not like we've had great success at removing other dictators.

EDIT maybe we could have the UN debate it for 20 or 30 years by which point it would be moot

[Ned]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior


So you agree that war isn't the unique solution ?

To force Sadaam to obey to UN resolution by the threat of a war, is a good point. Attacking Iracq whatever Saddam accept or refuse it, it is an error.

ZZW, War is a last resort only. If Saddam complies with UN resolutions - all of them - then we can end the sanctions and withdraw our planes from the no-fly zones.

We entered into this deal at the close of the Gulf War. We have just as much an obligation to live up to our side of the deal as does Saddam. If he is in compliance, we have no right to attack.

However, we should learn from this. Never again should we cut a war short as we did in 1992. We should finish it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Roland
Well if it were the case, wouldn't they have used it from the beginning ? It's a much more powerful argument for war then just the weapons. Well, I still might buy that if it weren't for 2 things:

- It's highly implausible that a Baath regime sponsors islamist terrorists it can in no way control
- There is no evidence other than the Bushies' claims

I'm not "convinced" either, but the notion of a Baathist regime sponsoring fundamentalist terrorists is certainly less far-fetched than the US sponsoring a Baathist regime.

Something about common enemies and being able to do through proxies what you don't have the means (or can't be caught without "plausible deniability") to openly do yourself.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian
As far as I'm concerned, the whole weapons inspections thing is a mess that has to be cleaned up somehow. I have stated that I don't think we have the right to tell other countries what weapons they can and cannot have, so the destruction of Saddam's nasty collection isn't what I'm after.

Same argument could have been applied to Hitler. Who cares if the Soviets patrolled 30 miles off our coast with missile subs or established missile bases in Cuba. National sovereignty is everything, the sacred be all and end all.

We can always react after somebody has decided to send us to hell.



I'm after a resolution of the impasse of the last decade. I'm after an agreement that will lift the no-fly zones and sanctions without discrediting the UN (I know you consider it already discredited). Removing Saddam is the job of the Iraqi people. If they wish to get rid of him, they will.
-Arrian [/QUOTE]

Removing Hitler and Tojo was the job of the German and Japanese people as well. After all, any dictator with a band of armed thugs has some magical right to be given as much recognition, credence and acceptance as any democratically elected leader.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
11 years after the Gulf war Sad-ie is better equipped with WMD than during that time, with or without inspectors.

Based upon what evidence?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Disinformation is a method used by intelligence agencies. In this case, however, high ranking government officials are saying it. While they too may be lying (or have been lied to) they would eventually pay a high price for telling those lies.

Lying to other countries doesn't bother. Lying to my own country bother's me. The government has no right to lie to the American people.

[Arrian]

You actually mean to compare Saddam to Hitler or Tojo in terms of the danger they posed?

Saddam tried to take over a neighboring state and was thoroughly stomped by half the world. His aggression was not appeased, as Hitler's was. Hitler and Tojo conquered large areas and it took the combined might of most of the world to stop them. Saddam was smacked down by a coalition... but it could have just been NATO. The point is, his aggression was halted. Immediately and forcefully. I do not believe he remains a threat - and comparisons to Hitler or Tojo are simply laughable (not in moral terms, but in practical terms).

The only part of the pro-war argument that makes sense to me is this: Saddam lost a war, and made an agreement (UN weapons inspections). He has failed to comply with that agreement. Therefore, he has violated the terms of the cease-fire, and the war is on again.

It's the agreement with the UN on inspections that matters, and it is therefore the UN's job to enforce the agreement. I will only support a non-UN sanctioned invasion of Iraq if Iraq attacks the US - or is proven to have aided in terror attacks against us.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian
You actually mean to compare Saddam to Hitler or Tojo in terms of the danger they posed?

Of course not. I was just taking your "it's none of our business what weapons other countries have" rationale to it's (il)logical conclusion.

Hitler and Tojo conquered large areas and it took the combined might of most of the world to stop them.

Because a jaded post-WW I world decided "who cares what weapons other countries have."

Saddam was smacked down by a coalition... but it could have just been NATO.

People really underestimate both the political and logistical contribution of the Saudis and the arab world in dealing with Saddam the first time.

The point is, his aggression was halted. Immediately and forcefully.

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.

It took six months of political maneuvering, and logistical handling and tranport of forces to eject his ass from Kuwait.

I do not believe he remains a threat - and comparisons to Hitler or Tojo are simply laughable (not in moral terms, but in practical terms).

Hitler in 1933 was a laughable buffoon. After Ni-ni-roku, Tojo was just another bucktoothed Jap with coke-bottle glasses leading a bunch more bucktoothed Japs with coke-bottle glasses, who were too busy assassinating each other to do anything noteworthy. The world learned differently, and a lot of innocents paid in blood for ignorance, cowardice and arrogance on the part of pre-war allied leadership.


I'm not a proponent of "immediate" war (we don't have and won't have the forces in place to do much quickly), nor am I a proponent of unilateral action. The point is that it is stupid to either assume the good intentions or the impotence of hostile dictators in an era where a lot of bang can be acquired for relatively few bucks.

[chequita guevara]

There is a massive difference between poweful industrialized countries which can manufacture weapons of war and a neo-colony like Iraq which is only an exporter of a natural resource (albeit a very important one). Even were Iraq to conquer the entire Gulf region, the country would be stretched to its limits and easy to knock over. It doesn't remotely approach the threat of Germany or Japan. It lacks even the capacity to develop into one of those kinds of threats.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Based upon what evidence?

Heres the CIA on CW at the beginning of the war

WE ESTIMATE THAT IRAQ HAD A STOCKPILE OF AT LEAST 1,000 TONS OF CW AGENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CONFLICT WITH THE COALITION FORCES. WE BELIEVE THE PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS OF THE STOCKPILE ARE MUSTARD AND NERVE AGENTS.

http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960715/72569.htm

Their caps not mine

Current estimates

After the Gulf War, UNSCOM destroyed more than 480,000 liters of chemical agents and 1.8 million liters of chemical precursors in Iraq. Because of the size of the Iraqi program, however, it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots. U.N. officials have publicly expressed their doubts that the entire Iraqi stockpile of chemical weapons was found. Rough estimates conclude that Iraq may have retained up to 600 metric tons of agents, including VX, mustard gas and sarin. There are thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for.

Biologicals

UNSCOM repeatedly reported that Iraq had failed to provide a full and correct account of its biological weapon program. UNSCOM remained concerned that Iraq may have retained a stock of biological weapons and related manufacturing capabilities as late as 1997. In the absence of inspections, it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin. There are numerous unconfirmed reports of Iraq's research into and possible production of other agents. http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/Iraq's%20WMD%20Arsenal.asp

I'll admit that since actual numbers are difficult to determine it may have been an overstatement that Iraq has more CBW than it did in 1991.

But if you believe that Iraq has no or only a small stockpile (remember no inspectors for 4 years) I refer you to this assesment put together by JIC http://www.ukonline.gov.uk/featurenews/iraqdossier.pdf

[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?

[Arrian]

That's pretty much what I was saying (edit: what Che said. Damn people are posting fast). Iraq is not Germany or even Japan. Saddam, bad as he is, simply lacks the capability to do what Hitler or Tojo did. If he tries to attack Kuwait or another neighbor again, he will again be smacked down.

As for my stand on whether or not we have the right to regulate other nation's weapons stores, I don't know if you read back a few pages, but my basis for that was that we have a huge (the most in the world?) supply of these vile WoMD ourselves, and we have used them in the past. Therefore, who in the hell are we to tell others that they cannot have those types of weapons?

-Arrian