My father brought this up at dinner tonight. I am unsure whether he found this idea somewhere or not, however, I think it may be true.
He said he believes it to be very likely that Iraq will "arrange" for the UN inspectors to find some small amount of evidence for arms development.
Anyone else think this likely?
THe options Saddam has are essentially: 1) Comply fully. Either we do or don't find evidence for WMD. If we do, he's done. War follows. If we don't, he loses a lot of his leverage on the world stage.
2) Not comply at all. Leads to war.
3) Comply, but plant old evidence and suggest that weapons have been dismantled or are no longer in construction. We would go to war with iraq, but he'd maintain much of his world leverage through china russia and france, making our war appear to be one of aggression. I feel like this situation has the possibility of being disastrous for the US. That there are subleties I am missing, that would be fairly devastating.
4) Try his old tactic of hiding things. Would likely lead to us blowing things up.
We shall see what happens, but I have fears number 3 happens, and we go to war while letting Saddam maintain his pose and leverage.
The man cannot have "leverage" subsequent to a war, because we will win it when he starts it by screwing around with the inspectors.
He will be made a criminal in his own land, not the commander in chief.
Believe me, there are a whole heck of a lot of pretty bright folks living in Iraq. When we make the commitment to remove him and his nasty nasty stuff, they will be thrilled to replace him with someone with a lick of sense.
With all the smoke and mirrors dispensed with, we simply will have as our war aims: 1. Remove Saddam's legitimacy. 2. Help the Iraquis install a government that they themselves can tolerate, and the rest of the world can tolerate.
One particular thought was raised on FOX news though that concerns me. The international inspections team, (approx 80 people), is smaller than a small city police department, and Iraq is a big country geographically, and a population of over twenty million people. Lots of ratholes.
In conclusion, the letter I read from the Iraquis this morning makes Saddam in "material breach" as of the delivery of the letter. The denial is itself a lie, and all we need to do is prove it.
Question for Ev -- IF this round of inspections DOES manage to cleans Iraq of WMDs, and Bush does NOT take us to war, and lifts the sanctions, would you *then* admit that you were wrong about him being a warmonger? Or would you be angry with Bush for not going to war after using the threat of war to make Saddam disarm? Is this a matter of principles for you, or of personalities?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
If so then he isn't looking very hard -- we have ample reason to go to war already. Fortunately there is also ample reason to not go to war.
Funny thing is that if Bush Sr. had allowed Saddam to keep Kuwait and to take Saudi Arabia, all the same lefties who bash him for the Gulf War's Blood for Oil program would be bashing him for cowardice. And if Bush Jr. found a way to disarm Saddam without going to war, the Democrats would be livid, and Ev would be up in his pacifistic arms about how Bush duped Americans into voting Republican to support a war that he never intended to deliver (gosh-awful scoundrel!)
Me -- I'm not fond of Clinton, but I'll give him his due when it comes to pushing through NAFTA, reducing the deficit, etc. The man had balls, and he could have been a great leader. I don't see that kind of give and take from the left. Whatever Bush does, some folks seem to cast it into a sinister light. The guy can't win.
[This message has been edited by Pete at Home (edited November 15, 2002).]
Not everyone is predicting war. This article may be interesting to most people - because the leading advocate of Supply-side economics is stating thet the UN found a way to stop the war from beginning.
You may all wish to check out Congressman Ron Paul's message as well. As the top true intellectual Conservative in Washington - he is dead set against the war.
[This message has been edited by WmLambert (edited November 14, 2002).]
BTW, A few of you may say that Paul is asking for a war to be called by Congress instead of by the UN - but then you didn't read his 4-page letter noting that the Pentagon has officiually noted that Iraq never used poison gas on its own citizens, and that it never tried to assassinate former President Bush (That was a ploy by Kuwait to stop a Clinton bid to reduce sanctions. The ploy allowed Clinton to bomb Iraq as a distraction from his criminal trials.) Further, he also notes that except for April Glaspie telling Saddam to go ahead and protect his oil fields from being stolen by Kuwait we would never have gone to war with him at all.
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
"And if Bush Jr. found a way to disarm Saddam without going to war, the Democrats would be livid, and Ev would be up in his pacifistic arms about how Bush duped Americans into voting Republican to support a war that he never intended to deliver (gosh-awful scoundrel!)"
If he does this, I will be very impressed, and give him his due, you can count on it. I do not like war. I've never fought, but I've read a LARGE number of firsthand accounts of people who have fought, not "been in the military", but been in the front lines. In addition, I had a fairly extensive conversation with my great uncle about his experiences being in a "first in last out" marine unit for four years in the pacific, as well as had conversations with other veterans. From this I know war is sometimes necessary, and soldiers will do their best, but also the belief that war is hell. I do not like that we are heading to war, and I do not think Bush has a team of advisors who caution him that war is hell, and I do not feel that he really understands what war IS (note the use of the word feel, rather then think). If he can resolve this issue without force, I will give him credit.
quote:If he can resolve this issue without force, I will give him credit.
That kind of turns your pledge into a nonstatement, since the threat of force is itself force, is it not? Would you give him credit if he resolves this issue without war in Iraq? Or would that be too generous?
Personally, I think that if Bush managed to disarm Saddam and end the sanctions without war or bombing, that he'd deserve the Nobel Peace prize. Would you concurr?
Pete- I meant force as war, but how about I caveat it this way... short of war, there are military actions that he could take that aren't really very different then war, and those that ARE very different from war. If the later, I will give him credit. If he just bombs Iraq into the stone age without declaring war or sending in troops, I won't give him credit. Fair enough?
"Personally, I think that if Bush managed to disarm Saddam and end the sanctions without war or bombing, that he'd deserve the Nobel Peace prize. Would you concurr?"
That depends on what else he does worldwide. Possibly. Jimmy Carter won his award more then 20 years after he started working for peace. I think we'll have to wait about that long to see exactly how the Bush Doctrine effects peace and war worldwide. So, in 2024 or so, I'll be willing to concede Bush deserves the peace price if things go in that direction.
I think the peace prize is intended for people who work against war in general, and I don't think Bush fits that description. But if his actions DO bring peace, and not just an avoidance of a particular war, then he would quite possibly deserve the award.
I think that if the U.S. armed forces clearly are about to launch an attack, on the ground, with the tanks this time definitely going all the way to Baghdad, then the Iraqi military will finally turn on Saddam Hussein. They fear him now, and that is all that stays their hands. But give them something to fear worse, such as clearly imminent American invasion, and Saddam will be gone within a day.
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Fair enough, Ev. Sorry for pressing you unjustly on this. Since you have demonstrated the ability to type the words "George Bush" and "Nobel Peace Prize" in the same sentence without foaming at the fingertips and short-circuiting your keyboard, you are clearly possess a more equanimious spirit than I gave you credit for. Since you passed my test and showed me to be mistaken about you, I humbly apologize for using your name in the same sentence as Eddie W.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Ian- I think arafat winning the peace prize was... I don't have the words for how wrong, on how many levels, that is. He's working against peace, using violent methods, against innocents.