Bush says UN can help stop spread of nuclear weapons. How serious is he?

[90's sc vet]

Well, for starters, Hitler had a military that Saddam could only dream of so these comparisons between Hitler and Hussein are just silly. Hussein was closer to Idi Amin than Adolf Hitler.

And besides that.......i dare you to ask me what Colin Powell said in February 2001. Go ahead, i double dare ya.

Here is what he said:

"...That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies "

But do you know what is significant about that statement? It was made on Feb 24, 2001.

That is the point I've been trying to make in this forum. You have to recognize that 9/11 changed everything in the US. What was regarded as an insignificant threat before 9/11 would be regarded as a major threat afterwards.

Before 9/11, the US had nothing major to fear from 19 terrorists, until they hijacked a bunch of airliners, killed 3000 civilians and tried to crash into the White House and Capitol Building. That would have happened except for the fight that occurred in Flight 93 and a relatively stupid terrorist pilot who couldn't find anything but the biggest building on earth, the Pentagon.

Before 9/11, Hussein's reputed attempts to weaponize anthrax were regarded as a threat but not a major one, which is the kind of small scale threat Powell was referring to.

After 9/11, it was recognized that even a medium or small sized anthrax production facililty could produce enough spores to kill hundreds of thousands of people and that much weaponized powder could be stored in five medium sized pieces of luggage. Before 9/11 Hussein had no reliable way of delivering the anthrax. After 9/11, with a supply of al Qaeda suicidal terrorists, a crop dusting airplane could have killed half the people in Washington. We're not talking about probabilities here either, we know that some of the 19 9/11 hijackers had made inquiries about crop dusting aircraft.

9/11 reduced the threshold at which the US would take lethal action. The reason is, the 19 9/11 hijackers seemed to pose such a small threat that no one was looking for them. After 9/11, even the smallest threat had to taken seriously because it's impossible to deter suicidal terrorists, you can't threaten them with death because that's what they want.

So Hussein's armed forces were a joke? So Hussein's WMD programs were small scale? So what? Look what 19 al Qaeda operatives did. What do you think might happen if the resources of a state like Iraq were combined with the supply of dedicated suicidal terrorists al Qaeda was able to provide?

You can't reliably defend against suicidal terrorists. The only hope was to go on offence and attack and remove the main source and supply of resources that might be directed towards al Qaeda. That only meant Afghanistan and Iraq, which exactly what the US did.

We're talking about the possibility of thousands or tens of thousands of US civilian casualties here, as the US found out directly on 9/11. This isn't a small scale threat any longer and if you're trying to make sense of US policies post 9/11, all you have to do is remember the image of the smoking ruins of the WTC.

It seems critics of US policy always want to assume that the US motives in their recents actions are somehow evil or stupid. But it's very simple to understand, the US doesn't ever want 9/11 to happen again and they'll do almost anything to prevent it.

 

[90's sc vet]

Fair point. And i wonder what the US position would have been had Hussein said back prior to Gulf War I that he went into Kuwait because he feared an attack from them. With zero evidence to back it up. You would have thought of him as i now think of George Bush. He's a clown.

Do you remember why Hussein attacked Kuwait prior to GW1? It wasn't because Kuwait posed a threat to him, zero evidence or not. It was because Hussein thought that the Kuwaitis were pumping more than their share of oil from an underground pool of oil that straddled the border between Iraq and Kuwait. So Hussein's rationale for the war was even weaker than the one you postulated.

As a liberal, what principle are you defending when you defend Hussein's right to continue as a murderous dictactor?

This is a problem with you conservatives. Take a liberal position, turn it into something it's not just so you can say liberals are wrong.

First of all, I'm not a conservative. I guess I'd say I went through the same transformation as Dennis Miller after 9/11. I have relatives in NYC and on that day, I was terrified. After 9/11, I'm not prepared to ignore obvious threats.

But the fact remains, if you are against the war that removed Hussein, you are defending a murderous tyrant.

BTW, you never did answer my question. In opposing GW2, what liberal principles were you advancing? How do you reconcile that fact that in your opposition, you were fighting to keep in power a dictator who used poison gas on his own citizens?

That's not a rhetorical question, I don't understand how principles of International Law could be applied in such a way to protect tyrants and to ignore the hundreds of thousands of people he killed. What is the point if having any form of International Law if that is how it is to be applied?

 

[90's sc vet]

the col. kurtz approach

No, that's old hat, it went out with the 70's.

Now it's all about precision guided bombs and limited application of force. Don't forget, in Viet Nam the US took 50,000 killed, or about 100 to 200 per week. Now it's 135 for an entire war. Still a tragic figure to be sure, but it pales in comparison to the 3000 US civilians killed on 9/11.

 

[90's sc vet]

There seemed to be some confusion about this one point. I referred to "Article 8" of the 1995 Update, which was identical to the 1995 NPT Principles and Objectives. So with that minor correction, my original point is still outstanding.

Step 8 of the 1995 P&O says this:

"further steps should be considered to assure non-nuclear-weapon States party to the Treaty against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. These steps could take the form of an internationally legally binding instrument."

AFAIK, no legally binding instrument was ever negotiated or signed, so I don't think you can claim that the US is now in violation of any form of the NPT with Bush's new doctrine.

But was such a legally binding agreement ever reached? I don't remember reading anything about that.

Step 8 of '95 NPT principle and objectives --8. Noting United Nations Security Council resolution 984 (1995), which was adopted unanimously on 11 April 1995, as well as the declarations of the nuclear-weapon States concerning both negative and positive security assurances, further steps should be considered to assure non-nuclear-weapon States party to the Treaty against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. These steps could take the form of an internationally legally binding instrument.--
Step 8 (agreed to by all members in '95) refers to UN resolution 984. 984 recognizes a non-nuclear state's interest in receiving security assurances from nuclear states.

If you read Res 984, you'll see that it refers to the 1995 Presidential Finding I had previously posted, the one where the US agreed to negative security assurances "except under certain circumstances". That's not a blanket negative security assurance.

What you've already posted confirms my initial suspicion, that Step 8 of the P&O was obviously a statement that the member states of the NPT ought to come to a binding agreement on the idea of a negative assurance for non nuclear states and it appears that Res 984 "recognizes" a non-nuclear state's "interest" in receiving security assurances from NWS.

That's not a binding part of the NPT or of any treaty at all, it's just a wish list, as so many UN resolutions are.

As I thought, you haven't been able to produce an addendum to the NPT that was signed and ratified by the member states. All you've produced is a resolution that codifies a wish list that only refers to a limited negative security assurance, and even then, it only refers to a Presidential Finding, not a legally binding treaty.

If that is the case, your assertion that the US's new preemptive doctrine is a breach of any form of the NPT would still be incorrect.

 

[Kathy P]

I hardly think that Clinton getting a BBJ in the Oval Office caused 9/11. Give me a fucking break!

As for Bush cleaning up anything, as far as I'm concerned the world is a more dangerous place now because of him not in spite.
He can take his precious dental records and shove them up his uptight ass.............

 

[Kathy P]

As for the case against Israel, this is a no brainer. The only people that have anything against Israel are the ones that want to do it damage. Their idealogy is the same that was used by the Nazi's - Israel is populated by Jews and because they're Jews we hate them and that justifies their destruction.

Anything that Israel does in the context of that idealogy is defensive. Kill or be killed.

There is a frightening double standard going on the world because of this anti-Semitic belief. Would/did anyone criticize the U.S. for defending itself in light of 9/11? Israel has mini 9/11's happening every day of the week perpetrated by nutcases who rationalize murder in the name of a state.

By the way, the Palestinians did not need to find for their state. It was created by the U.N. at the same time Israel was in 1947. All they had to do was to agree to live in peace.

They weren't willing to and hence attacked Israel on May 15, 1948 the day it became a state. Anything Israel did she did in justifiable defence of her existence. Enough said about aggressors.

 

[Kathy P]

Fight as opposed to find. I need some sleep...............

 

[*d*]

If you read Res 984, you'll see that it refers to the 1995 Presidential Finding I had previously posted, the one where the US agreed to negative security assurances "except under certain circumstances". That's not a blanket negative security assurance.

Bullsh*t. Nowhere in resolution 984 is there a reference to US policy using the phrase 'except under certain circumstances'. Here's the only reference to a US policies- S/1995/263 (6 April 1995).
--The United States will not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the non-proliferation Treaty or any comparably internationally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear explosive devices, except in the case of an attack on the United States, its territories or armed forces, or its allies, by such a State allied to a nuclear-weapon State or associated with a nuclear-weapon State in carrying out or sustaining the attack.--
I only see, 'except in case of attack'. There's nothing about preemptive attack. Preemptive attack is new policy, not yet agreed to by the NPT.
And BTW, looking back you'll find my response to the rest of your earlier post. Just in case you missed it.

Well I've got flowers to deliver. Happy Valentines.

 

[Ickabod]

the worst thing Clinton did was during the transition to the Bush administration, Clinton didn't indicate to anyone in the incoming administration that al Qaeda was a top priority security issue. Clinton has tried to rewrite history on that issue, but the fact remains, he had 8 years to take action and failed.

So your answer is Bush didn't do jack squat. And oh by the way, i'm sure Condi Rice will be happy to testify that Clinton didn't warn them about Al Qaida. Oh that's right, she wouldn't go under oath. Nevermind. Quit listening to Rush Limbaugh and read the papers.

The Bush adminstration had elevated the risk of al Qaeda and were preparing to take action (remember, only a few months after taking office and after 8 years of Clinton) when 9/11 occurred.

How convenient that this so called draft was completed on Sept 10, 1 day before the attack. "If they would have waited 3 more days, we'd have saved the country". Sorry, Bush is absolutely incapable of telling the truth about something as stupid as the Mission Accomplished sign, i have no faith he'll tell the truth about his emphasis on Al Qaida prior to 9/11. What was his relationship with the Taliban prior to 9/11 by the way?

So tell me this, what did Clinton do that was so effective in fighting al Qaeda?
For the past 3 years, no one has ever answered that question. Take your best shot.

Tons of stuff, but i can't tell you what due to national security reasons. Though since Iraq is on your radar, i'll inform you for the 2nd time that he seems to have gotten rid of those pesky WMD's back in 1998. Beyond that, he did exactly what Reagan did to fight terrorism, when he (Reagan) wasn't cultivating it, of course. Drop a bomb here and drop a bomb there. And hell, every time he did that the right wing garbonzos in this country hooted and hollered saying he only did that to change the freakin' subject from their blow job fascinations. The conservatives are a bunch of clowns in this country. All they gave a crap about for 8 years was who the President was fucking. Now all they care about is what reason they can come up with to start another damn war.

 

[Ickabod]

But do you know what is significant about that statement? It was made on Feb 24, 2001

That is the point I've been trying to make in this forum. You have to recognize that 9/11 changed everything in the US. What was regarded as an insignificant threat before 9/11 would be regarded as a major threat afterwards.

Oh please. By that logic we should have bombed every country that had an air force, or thought about having an air force, after Pearl Harbor. Besides that, you totally ignore the point anyways. The war started out as not being about Saddam Hussein. It started out as being about his WMD's. His Nuclear Program. Disarmament. I'll say it again, disarmament. Well, according to Colin Powell, he already was disarmed, and we knew it.

Before 9/11, Hussein's reputed attempts to weaponize anthrax were regarded as a threat but not a major one, which is the kind of small scale threat Powell was referring to.

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding. You mean to tell me that these yahoos in the White House had no idea how many people could be killed from these supposed weapons until after 9/11?

After 9/11, it was recognized that even a medium or small sized anthrax production facililty could produce enough spores to kill hundreds of thousands of people and that much weaponized powder could be stored in five medium sized pieces of luggage.

Ok, I guess you weren't kidding.

So Hussein's armed forces were a joke? So Hussein's WMD programs were small scale? So what? Look what 19 al Qaeda operatives did. What do you think might happen if the resources of a state like Iraq were combined with the supply of dedicated suicidal terrorists al Qaeda was able to provide?

Well, i imagine they'd be able to accomplish what 19 hijackers could do if financed by a country with the resources of Saudi Arabia. And yes, that was sarcasm.

You can't reliably defend against suicidal terrorists. The only hope was to go on offence and attack and remove the main source and supply of resources that might be directed towards al Qaeda. That only meant Afghanistan and Iraq, which exactly what the US did.

Uh...no. That would mean going after Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Was Iraq the country that was blacked out in those 28 pages concerning 9/11? Were 12 of the 19 terrorists from Iraq? Hell, when's the last time, before this stupid war, that you ever heard of a terrorist from Iraq? And where is Bin Laden's family? Oh sure, they say the denounce him, but then again, Bush says he's a uniter and not a divider. What you say and $1.25 will get ya a cup of coffee.

It seems critics of US policy always want to assume that the US motives in their recents actions are somehow evil or stupid. But it's very simple to understand, the US doesn't ever want 9/11 to happen again and they'll do almost anything to prevent it.

Well, if Bush would stop lying about why he does things, maybe i'll start to believe you. Not one thing Bush had said before the war proved true. No WMD. No Iraqi oil to pay for the thing. Didn't say anything about more people getting killed after the fall of the regime than before. But his campaign contributors are making out awfully damn good on this whole thing. Funny, Saudi Arabia is financing and supplying terrorists....Pakistan is selling nuclear secrets to anyone who wants them bad enough, and we go after Saddam Hussein.....who turned down Pakistan's offer. Tell me that's not irony.

By the way, you leave out one inconvenient point. Nobody, repeat, nobody criticized George Bush for going after Afghanistan. War should be a no brainer. You make fair points. Wrong, i believe, but fair. But they certainly do not rise to the level of showing this war is a no brainer. These people in the White House guessed. There's no other way to put it. They guessed (and that's being generous of the assumption they didn't flat out lie). You don't guess yourself into a war. Frankly, this war totally ignores the rules of engagement that our troops are expected to fight it under. If you truly are a vet, you should understand that.

 

[90's sc vet]

Bullsh*t. Nowhere in resolution 984 is there a reference to US policy using the phrase 'except under certain circumstances'. Here's the only reference to a US policies- S/1995/263 (6 April 1995).
--The United States will not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the non-proliferation Treaty or any comparably internationally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear explosive devices, except in the case of an attack on the United States, its territories or armed forces, or its allies, by such a State allied to a nuclear-weapon State or associated with a nuclear-weapon State in carrying out or sustaining the attack.--
I only see, 'except in case of attack'. There's nothing about preemptive attack. Preemptive attack is new policy, not yet agreed to by the NPT.
And BTW, looking back you'll find my response to the rest of your earlier post. Just in case you missed it.

Well I've got flowers to deliver. Happy Valentines.

What is bizarre is that we're talking about the same Presidential Finding, but in cases each of us has brought forward, they both contradict your original assertion, that there exists a blanket negative security assurance. There clearly is none.

In the Presidential Finding I read, the phrase "certain circumstances" was used, in the subsequent statement issued to the UN, the phrase was modified to "except in the case of attack". I had assumed that S/1995/263 and the Finding were identical, but they weren't quite the same. But both contradict your assertion that there exists a blanket negative security assurance.

However, I'll have to read more about the nature of UN resolutions and the 1995 and 2000 NPT conferences, along with Res 984.

Here is the relevant text from 984:

"1.Takes note with appreciation of the statements made by each of the
nuclear-weapon States (S/1995/261, S/1995/262, S/1995/263, S/1995/264,
S/1995/265), in which they give security assurances against the use of nuclear
weapons to non-nuclear-weapon States that are Parties to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons;"

If you read 984 all the way through, it does not attach the statements made by the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) to the NPT. Instead, 984 lays out the principle that a state being attacked can bring the issue to the UN Security Council for further discussion. There doesn't appear to be any amendment to the original NPT, nor is there an explicit attachment of the statements made by the NWS to the NPT, as you have alleged.

If S/1995/263 was a Presidential Directive and not part of the NPT, then Bush can reverse that policy as a matter of course and the US would not be in material breach of the NPT.

I'm also not so sure about the status of either of the 1995 or 2000 P+Os, both of which were reports coming out of an NPT conference. The US issued a statement affirming the permanent status of the NPT, which was required in 1995 at the 25th anniversary of the 1970 ratification of the NPT, but I'll have to read and see if the 1995 P+O was legally attached to the 1968 NPT. If not, then neither of the 1995 or 2000 P+O post NPT conference reports would be binding.

Yes, I read your other response. I decided to watch the hockey game rather than post, which I'll do sometime tomorrow.

In the meantime, you might do some more research and either try to find the "numerous restrictions" on NWS that you claimed were in the NPT, or concede that they don't exist and the US isn't bound by any such restrictions. Your attempt to stretch Article VI into an umbrella clause covering all R+D on new weapons doesn't appear to be supported by anyone or nation that I can find.

You should read the various SALT and START treaties for the kinds of technical restrictions that routinely appear in Treaties between nations. AFAIK, no nuclear weapons treaty has ever restricted technical development of weapons. Range, payload and numbers are generally limited, but not technological development.

You should also read up on the nature of the Rule of Law. Your point asking me to show where the NPT allowed NWS to develop new nuclear weapons was a contradiction of both the nature of Treaties between states (Treaties are prohibitions against certain actions, not permissions to do certain actions) and the rule of law in general. No state can be bound by clauses not in Treaties, which is obvious. There are no clauses limiting development of new weapons in the NPT, so the US can't be in breach of the NPT if they develop a new warhead.

 

[90's sc vet]

So your answer is Bush didn't do jack squat.

As I said in another post, Clinton had 8 years, Bush had about 8 months. What I don't understand is your double standard. Somehow Clinton gets off the hook in spite of years of ineffective action and you slam Bush because he didn't solve the problem even though he only had about 1/10 the time to do something about it.

How convenient that this so called draft was completed on Sept 10, 1 day before the attack.

What was his relationship with the Taliban prior to 9/11 by the way?

Well, that's what was reported. Bush was inaugurated in Jan 20, 2001, got his administration together and was preparing to reverse Clinton's policies toward al Qaeda in just a few months.

BTW, the US was the biggest supplier of foreign aid to the Taliban prior to 9/11. The US gave food to the Taliban, in return the Taliban curtailed heroin production. That was probably a factor in deciding how to deal with al Qaeda. If the Taliban were willing to literally chop off the hand that fed them, there could be no limits to whatever else they'd do. You'd have to conclude that it was not possible to deter al Qaeda.

Tons of stuff, but i can't tell you what due to national security reasons.

I'm amazed that you tried that in this forum. National security reasons? Come on, what were you, some kind of NSC operative during the Clinton years? Pull out the "if I told you, I'd have to kill you" rabbit out of the hat?

In any case, whatever you're alleging happened, it sure didn't work did it?

But now you've opened up a real can of worms. So you're saying that Clinton took major action against al Qaeda? So he was fully aware of the dangers? Why didn't he then take decisive action? Are you alleging that Clinton knew about the possibility of something like 9/11 beforehand but failed to prevent it?

What exactly are you trying to say? Because whatever you're alleging, Clinton failed. None of al Qaeda was captured or harmed or in any way deterred from completing their plan on 9/11. You can't have it both ways. Either Clinton knew what was going in and failed to prevent it, or he was clueless in spite of the 1993 WTC attack, the attack on the Cole and the attacks on the US embassies in Africa. You seem to be saying that Clinton did "tons of stuff" but it all failed.

But I'll be up front about one thing, try that "national security" stunt again and our conversation will immediately end.

Though since Iraq is on your radar, i'll inform you for the 2nd time that he seems to have gotten rid of those pesky WMD's back in 1998. Beyond that, he did exactly what Reagan did to fight terrorism, when he (Reagan) wasn't cultivating it, of course. Drop a bomb here and drop a bomb there.

What Reagan did in Lebanon was idiotic, IMO. Same as what Clinton did in Somalia and didn't do with respect to al Qaeda, all of it was stupid. But Clinton was much more stupid, especially over Somalia, which, BTW, bin Laden mentioned formed part of his strategy against the US.

But I'd suggest you read up on Clinton's Presidential Findings and the various UN Resolutions and Congressional resolutions passed during the Clinton Administation regarding Iraq, especially in 1998. I think you'd be surprised at the continuity of US policy. Bush was hardly unique in his beliefs about WMD in Iraq.

 

[90's sc vet]

Oh please. By that logic we should have bombed every country that had an air force, or thought about having an air force, after Pearl Harbor. Besides that, you totally ignore the point anyways. The war started out as not being about Saddam Hussein.

Actually, isn't that what happened after Pearl Harbour? The US declared war against all their enemies, Japan and Germany. And that's what happened after 9/11. The two states that had shown aggression against the US, Iraq and the Taliban/Afghanistan, were targeted.

I'm not forgetting that the basis of GW2 was WMD. But as I said before, Bush couldn't take the risk that Hussein, given his long history of aggression, wouldn't start supplying WMD to al Qaeda. Listen to what Bush said, his message on that topic hasn't changed.

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding. You mean to tell me that these yahoos in the White House had no idea how many people could be killed from these supposed weapons until after 9/11?

Ok, I guess you weren't kidding.

As I posted before, Hussein had been known to produce WMD, we've all seen the videos of those gassed Kurds and Iranian solders.

Prior to 9/11, Hussein had no reliable way to deliver any form of WMD to the US. But after 9/11, it was incredibly obvious that, for the first time, a large supply of willing suicide terrorists could be found to deliver a lethal payload.

For example, someone flying a crop dusting airplane over Washington and dropping Anthrax is on a suicide mission. So before 9/11 it was reasonable to think that the probabilty of that kind of attack was zero. After 9/11, the probability went up to 100%.

I wasn't talking about the lethality of WMD, I was talking about obtaining a reliable weapons delivery system. That was new after 9/11.

Well, i imagine they'd be able to accomplish what 19 hijackers could do if financed by a country with the resources of Saudi Arabia. And yes, that was sarcasm.

But they were financed by Saudi Arabia, no one is denying that. The difference was this, certain groups within Saudi Arabia supplied only money. Money isn't going to kill half the people in Washington, Saudi Arabia wasn't known to have any WMD programs, nor were they known to supply weapons to terrorists. Money certainly, but not WMD.

Hussein was known to have active WMD programs, he was known to give money and resources to Palestinian terrorists, he was known to attack US allies. So how much of a stretch would it be to think that one day, maybe not in 2001 but one day in the future, Hussein would supply WMD to al Qaeda? Put WMD into the hands of suicidal terrorists and you have an unstoppable combination. The US found that out the hard way on 9/11. That's what Rice and Bush have been saying, the attack on Hussein was an attempt to prevent the next 9/11, except next time, it might be a thousand times worse.

That would mean going after Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Was Iraq the country that was blacked out in those 28 pages concerning 9/11? Were 12 of the 19 terrorists from Iraq? Hell, when's the last time, before this stupid war, that you ever heard of a terrorist from Iraq?

The tough part of Saudi Arabia is that there is a pro US faction that, if you blew up Riyadh, you'd lose them.

US policy over Saudi Arabia has worked. In the end, the Saudis came onside and started to root out the al Qaeda elements in their country. They've also curtailed some of the money transfers to terrorists.

The difference between Saudi Arabia and Iraq and the Taliban is that, when demands were put to the Saudis, they responded. Hussein and the Taliban did not. So the US achieved a double victory in Saudi Arabia, they didn't have to attack and the Saudis have given the US what it wanted, attacks on al Qaeda assets in Saudi Arabia.

So you can see why I reject your contention that the US should have blown up Saudi Arabia. The Saudis made huge errors in how they treated militants in their country, but in the end, they did what the US asked. I don't see anything wrong with that.

BTW, the terrorist from Iraq? Would Hussein qualify? He attacked Kuwait and Iran without any provocation and has supplied money to Palestinian human bombs. Sounds like a terrorist to me.

(more)

 

[90's sc vet]

Not one thing Bush had said before the war proved true. No WMD. No Iraqi oil to pay for the thing. Didn't say anything about more people getting killed after the fall of the regime than before.
Pakistan is selling nuclear secrets to anyone who wants them bad enough, and we go after Saddam Hussein.....who turned down Pakistan's offer. Tell me that's not irony.

I don't think WMD will be found in Iraq. But I still support Bush's actions. As I said, he couldn't risk the lives of thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of US citizens on the hope that Hussein, a dictator known to have murderous anti-US beliefs, would not one day reach an alliance with al Qaeda.

After 9/11, that risk was far too high. If Washington and NYC were destroyed, which after 9/11 was a possibility no one could ignore, the US as we know it would have ended forever.

IIRC, Iraqi generally earns about $20B/year from oil sales, about 5% of the US defense budget. Bush never said that Iraqi oil would pay for anything, the revenues have always been known to be far too small.

It's fair to criticize Bush for the post war period, all their assumptions turned out to be false. AFAIK, they had assumed a massive post war food and oil shortage, same as what happened in Japan and German after WW2.

But what happened instead was the Iraqis didn't blow the oil fields and the war went so quickly, relatively little of Iraq's infrastructure was damaged. So instead of rationing, which would limit any insurgency, there is plenty of food and enough money to finance an guerilla war. I don't know that anyone could have guessed that would happen, but that's how it turned out.

BTW, can you supply a url about Hussein turning down Pakistan? That was new to me.

I don't know what the US is going to do about Pakistan. The US needs Pakistan to fight al Qaeda in the region, yet Pakistan was the main supporter of the Taliban. However, blowing up Pakistan would have made invading Afghanistan impossible, so evidently Bush decided to go after the main objective and hold his nose over Pakistan. So I think your suggestion that the US punish Pakistan, while understandable, would have led to the total failure of the US strategy in Afghanistan. I don't think that was the idea.

By the way, you leave out one inconvenient point.
War should be a no brainer. You make fair points. Wrong, i believe, but fair. But they certainly do not rise to the level of showing this war is a no brainer.

You don't guess yourself into a war. Frankly, this war totally ignores the rules of engagement that our troops are expected to fight it under.

I'm very surprised that you wrote that.
The US has always been reluctant to go to war. Afghanistan was very much an aberration.

The US delayed entering WW1 for years. The US entered WW2 in 1941, two years after WW2 started. Even then, it took Pearl Harbour to convince the isolationists. The Korean War and Viet Nam were hardly no brainers.
Even GW1 passed the Senate by only 55-45, hardly a slam dunk vote in spite of the fact that in that instance, Hussein was clearly the aggressor.

So, based on historical US behaviour, I'd say that your assertion that war for the US is should always be a no brainer is incorrect. That's never been the case, especially for WW2 and GW1, the two wars you might think were the most justified.

If you truly are a vet, you should understand that.

Er, my full nickname is 90's Strip Club Vet. I'm actually a veteran of the Lap Dance Wars in Toronto, not a shooting war. I didn't expect to be discussing US non proliferation actions in Terb, so my nickname is more appropriate for the heathen activities here. ;->

BTW, you never did answer my question. In opposing GW2, what liberal principles were you advancing? How do you reconcile that fact that in your opposition, you were fighting to keep in power a dictator who used poison gas on his own citizens?

 

[90's sc vet]

As for the case against Israel, this is a no brainer. The only people that have anything against Israel are the ones that want to do it damage.

Anything that Israel does in the context of that idealogy is defensive. Kill or be killed.

I went over the other posts we've exchanged, I'm not sure what case was made against Israel or how the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict entered this discussion.

But, for the record, I'm against all Israeli land confiscation policies in the Middle East and I'm against the Canadian/US unconditional support of those Israeli policies in the region.

However, on the other side, after 9/11, I find it impossible to support any militant Islamic group.

But the Israeli/Palestinian conflict isn't going to be solved in this forum and it doesn't really belong in the current set of discussions.

 

[Ickabod]

SC Vet:
I don't have time to sit here and address you point by point. Let me say this. Saddam had no weapons. Ok? Bush knew this. He says he went in "on the best intelligence". If you believe that, i've got a bridge....We know for a fact that he ignored the "best intelligence" which were the inspectors on the ground in Iraq peaking around. What better intelligence is there than that? I'm not sure what part of that doesn't sink in, but that's the simple fact.

Also, you stated Hussein is a terrorist because he went into Kuwait and Iran without provocation. Think about that statement for a minute. And you probably wonder why they hate us.

So you think Saudi Arabia gets a pass because they supplied only money to Al Qaida? As opposed to the country that supplied, well, nothing? But Iraq wanted us harmed? And i suppose supplying Al Qaida with funding doesn't indicate they wanted us harmed? And they've reformed? Ok, whatever. So did Hussein. He did exactly what he was asked....got rid of his WMD program, and we knew it.

And Bush may have known the Iraqi oil revenues are too small to pay for this thing. But he said it. Wolfowitz specifically said it before Congress. What he knows and what he passes off on the American people are definitely 2 different things so i wouldn't let that little fact deter ya.

An archived newsday article:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0110-01.htm
And:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1853393
The relevant portion of the 2nd:
Even then, experts say Iraq's oil revenue would probably fall short of what is needed to pay for postwar reconstruction, and much of the immediate shortfall would wind up being financed by U.S. Treasury bonds.

So far, the administration seems not to have noticed. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz testified recently that Iraq would be able to pick up much of the tab for postwar rebuilding.

I report, you decide.

Here's the link to Saddam turning down Pakistans offer.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4163638/

The US had always been reluctant to go to war. Until this one. Bush and his pals were frothing at the mouth at this one. Let no truth stand in the way.

As far as liberal principles, i did answer you once. Don't lie your country into a war. This may come as a surprise to you as i'm sure you're not familiar with all my posts on the subject but i was pro getting rid of the guy. Back in Sept, Oct and Nov of 2002 i was as gung ho as the next guy. But it started slowly coming to me that Bush was lying. And no matter what good might have come from it, i couldn't justify lying people into a war situation. Period. If you have a case for war, you present it. If you don't have a case for one but want one anyways, you lie.

You said i'm supporting a murderous dictatorial tyrant by being against this war. That's bull, but fine, you can say it. Then i can only suppose that you support every other murderous dictatorial tyrant that you're not proposing war against to remove. Do you remember the conservative uproar over Kosovo? Well, can you just imagine how that uproar would have multiplied with over 500 American deaths, a quagmire, and $150 billion later? With a likely civil war awaiting us at the end of it? With nothing but lies that got us into the thing? Please.

 

[Ickabod]

As I said in another post, Clinton had 8 years, Bush had about 8 months. What I don't understand is your double standard. Somehow Clinton gets off the hook in spite of years of ineffective action and you slam Bush because he didn't solve the problem even though he only had about 1/10 the time to do something about it.

Um, you're the one who brought up Bill Clinton. I defended him only relative to comparing what he did or didn't do to what Bush did or didn't do. You're the one with the double standard. I'll say neither one of them did jack squat. Although again, any time Bill Clinton tried to do something he was pounced on by the "real patriots" of this country. Just don't be so naive as to think Bush is so visionary because he's doing what he's doing now post 9/11. A retard could have figured out we need a war on terror after 9/11.

But I'll be up front about one thing, try that "national security" stunt again and our conversation will immediately end.

Sarcasm escapes you. If i knew you were gonna take 4 paragraphs to address that comment i would have made more of an effort to point it out to ya. Everything Bush doesn't want us to know, he hides due to "national security reasons".

Note: My edit was simply to correct a spelling error.

 

[90's sc vet]

Um, you're the one who brought up Bill Clinton. I defended him only relative to comparing what he did or didn't do to what Bush did or didn't do. You're the one with the double standard. I'll say neither one of them did jack squat.

Then we're both in agreement that Clinton did nothing, which was my original point.

However, on Bush, my position is that he didn't have time to do anything at all. The Clinton administration didn't see al Qaeda as a major threat, the Bush adminstration accepted that during the transition but slowly it's mind changed over the summer, leading up to the Sept 10 memo. All you can say about Bush is that they were preparing to reverse Clinton's policies toward al Qaeda but ran out of time before 9/11.

I think it's fair to criticize Clinton, he had 8 years to take action. It's not fair to criticize Bush, nor praise him, for the 8 months prior to 9/11. There just wasn't enough time to reverse US policy. And as you said, after 9/11, US policy was obvious and anyone could have set it.

 

[Ickabod]

Then we're both in agreement that Clinton did nothing, which was my original point.

However, on Bush, my position is that he didn't have time to do anything at all. The Clinton administration didn't see al Qaeda as a major threat, the Bush adminstration accepted that during the transition but slowly it's mind changed over the summer, leading up to the Sept 10 memo. All you can say about Bush is that they were preparing to reverse Clinton's policies toward al Qaeda but ran out of time before 9/11.

I think it's fair to criticize Clinton, he had 8 years to take action. It's not fair to criticize Bush, nor praise him, for the 8 months prior to 9/11. There just wasn't enough time to reverse US policy. And as you said, after 9/11, US policy was obvious and anyone could have set it.

Well, this assumes a major assumption on your part that Clinton didn't indicate to Bush that Al Qaida was a major issue that needed to be dealt with. I think that assumption is, frankly, garbage, but to each his own.

I guess media reports that buttress your argument are to be taken at face value, but those that don't are revisionist. Ok, mentally noted.

 

[Ickabod]

And oh by the way...one more thing....

But Clinton was much more stupid, especially over Somalia, which, BTW, bin Laden mentioned formed part of his strategy against the US.

I'm sure Bin Laden won't be using Iraq as part of his strategy. (that was sarcasm again). I'd be willing to bet Bin Laden hopes Bush wins the election. Saudi Arabia is financing them, Pakistan sells Nuclear Secrets, and we're spending our time and money on a fight that's as productive to our needs as if we'd have invaded Canada....AND we're creating a major recruiting tool to boot. Great strategy!!