Re: Soapbox: The Saddam issue
Alright, WVIT100. That was a reasonable response to my somewhat unprovoked attack.<br /><br />Allow me to rephrase my response:<br /><br />First:<br /><br />Iraq's current status: We know that Iraq has chemical weapons. Saddam has demonstrated the will to use them against his own countrymen. Our intelligence (direct human, anecdotal, and satellite) tells us that Hussein has managed to acquire spent fuel rods from Russia. (from US News article from several months ago). There are very few uses for spent fuel rods except weapons programs. I don't believe that Saddam has suddenly decided to compete with the Mayo Clinic in the area of cancer research.<br /><br />Substantial commentary from former military officials in a variety of media suggests that if Saddam isn't already there on a nuclear weapon, he is close. Additionally, we know SH still has some Scuds. They admittedly were very inaccurate in the Gulf War but he's had 10 years to improve them and I would guess that he has made some strides on accuracy. I can grant you that there is no proof of biological agents (at least that we know of). What we can safely conclude is that SH has chemical agents and that he has improved his ability to deliver them.<br /><br />Let us simply agree that SH has the ability to remotely kill large numbers of people, ok???<br /><br />Now you might say, "so??? that doesn't give us the right to invade". Unfortunately for Saddam, the peace accords that ended the Gulf War specifically prohibited SH from developing weapons of mass destruction. These are identical to the accords which prevent Japan from developing an offensive arsenal. This is the point of a peace accord and I'm sure you realize it. If you fight and lose, the winner gets to dictate terms. In our example, SH lost and agreed to abstain from weapons programs. Regular, unemcumbered inspections were also a provision. In exchange, we agreed not to remove him from power and would enforce no-fly zones. As I recall, everybody signed the accord.<br /><br />Fast forward 10 years. SH kicked out the weapons inspectors 3 1/2 years ago. I must ask why! Why would he do this? Its in violation of the peace terms. It would also suggest that he's doing something he wishes to keep secret. Again...why? Here I am, an ordinary citizen and I can determine from CNN that Saddam is up to something. He shoots at our planes that patrol the No-Fly zone. He won't let us inspect certain facilities. He is buying plutonium from the Russian black market. <br /><br />Lets skip the empirical evidence and just agree that SH has violated at least 3-4 terms of the cease fire of 1991??? Can we agree?<br /><br />.....Summary......<br /><br />Saddam funds terrorist movements. He pays $25k to each suicide bomber in Israel. He shoots at our F-15's (this alone constitutes war). He kicked out weapons inspectors in direct violation of his signed peace agreement. He continues to develop offensive weapons programs. (Lets not pretend that chemical arsenals are "defensive") Even if its not tied to the war on terror, I *personally* feel like an attack on Iraq is justified. I hate to use the Hitler arguement because its the most worn out defense there is...but Hitler launched an offensive/appeasement campaign very early on. He marched into the Sudentenland and declared it part of Germany. NObody blinked. He conducted the Anschluss by annexing Austria and nobody blinked. He continued to stockpile weapons while everybody shrugged and said, "thats his perogative". Then when he had a supercharged military machine, he took over western Europe.<br /><br />I don't believe Saddam is amassing weapons to defend himself. I don't believe he's doing it in the interest of his own National Security. I think he's doing it to go on the offensive at some point and its incumbent upon us to stop that...if for no other reason than he's breaking our peace deal.<br /><br />As for what type of government to install...I don't have a great deal of wisdom or understanding with regard to Muslim international politics. Perhaps we annex Iraq as part of Kuwait. Perhaps we do what we're doing in Afghanistan with Hamid Karzai. Dunno. What I do know is that SH intends to one day use his weapons aggressively and it probably won't be on his fellow Islamic nation states. Israel, the UK, or the US will almost certainly be the target!<br /><br />You make this statement: "And then what exactly is our plan after invading a country that hasn't actually threatened anyone for almost 10 years"<br /><br />I submit that this is exactly the kind of short sightedness that made the UN decide to pull out. I'm not faulting you specifically. This mentality is endemic. SH attacked and invaded a soverign nation state who was also allied with the US. Seven years later, with almost no change in goverment, policy, or attitude, we say, "well ok...he wants us to leave so I guess we will...and besides, he's been good." Unfortunately, we can't seem to change the ways of the average street thug in seven years behind bars. Why does anybody think that some sanctions have cured SH in the same period of time? Castro hasn't mended his ways after 40 years!<br /><br />NO, NO, NO. This is the same guy, same attitude, same ego. He's just a little smarter and will be more careful next time around.<br /><br />Your points about Saudi Arabia are highly relevant. While I don't advocate attacking them, I do advocate some sort of punishment. Saudi's are two faced. One of their princes just got busted running cocaine in Florida. Another prince directly funded Al Queda. Only 8% of the oil in the US is from Saudi Arabia. I say lets get that number to zero and then tell them to take a hike.<br /><br />I leave you with this broad question: If you don't believe that we should depose Saddam now, at what point is it appropriate? Should we refrain from attacking Saddam until after Washington DC is a wasteland?<br /><br />Your response????????
