Get Your War On

[onthebottom]

Re: More Lessons

Let's wrap up all this nonsense about Iraq:

OTB:
<<Estimated half a million casualties, from which orifice did you extract this number? This rings of the dire comments on the first Gulf war and the comments about how if the Russians couldn't beat Afghanistan in 10 years how could we do it. There won't be 1/10th that many casualties on both sides combined, likely not 1/100th. Sadam has killed more of his people in two wars and terror in a decade than we will ever kill. The real mess will be after the war, getting the tribes to live together without tearing themselves to pieces. >>

The casualty estimates reflect CURRENT casualties due to sanctions. The casualty estimates for actually war in Iraq, meaning invasion, are staggering.

Baghdad has a population of about 5 million people. The US, following it's strategy for low intensity conflict, will try and avoid too much urban combat with ground forces. It will likely follow doctrine and smash resistance with the type of air campaigns we have seen escalating since Vietnam. Imagine a city of 5 million being bombed into submission. The casualties will be horriffic, but only for Iraqis. Sure it's possible the Iraqi army could just surrender, but good planning would not count on such a thing.

Saddam has murdered many, there is no doubt. But more than the US? Hardly. Not including deaths from proxy forces (Latin America, East Timor, Haiti, etc..) if we examine the record we see as many as 4 million deaths in Indochina alone. To suggest more have died at the hands of Saddam is absoloutely outrageous. WE have killed more Iraqis than Saddam has killed anyone else.

More on our own record of terror and atrocities later....

Sadam caused casualties (not caused by sanctions as stated above) are about 227k in a decade.

Baghdad will not be bombed into submission. The lights will be turned off, the phones won't work. The Republican Guard (approx 6 divisions surrounding Baghdad) will be destroyed. The regular army stationed south of Baghdad (largely ethnic Shi'it) will either surrender or be destroyed. I'd bet largely on the former, this area is a source of many of the uprising and coup attempts against Sadam. Precision guided munitions will limit innocent casualties (yes there will be some). With American Tanks in Iraq, the people will finally have the confidence to rise up against the terror they live under. There will be almost no organized resistance after the air war. The only real risk, both for Iraqi's and US troops are WMD, which is the real reason this will happen next Feb - March.

The US has killed many as a part of war, the Germans could attest to this. I have no idea how many Vietnamese we killed, I don't know that it's the same killing a solder in battle (when he is attaching) and starving children.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

This is the point

<<He has massive WMD and will use them (ask the Kurds or Iranians). This is not an if, it's a when. The French have supplied the nuclear plants and technology, the Germans the chemical technology.>>

The weapons he used against the Kurds and Iranians were supplied by the US, the massacares were carried out with US support in the case of Iran and US indifference in the case of the Kurds. The US, not the Germans supplied Saddam with the means to create a chemical and biological weapons program. Saddam was a good friend to Washington when he obeyed orders.

Many former UN weapons inspectors acknowledge that they feel about 90-95% of Saddams WMD capability was successfully destroyed by allied bombings and subsequent inspections programs. Even the moderate consensus is that his capabilities are "severely diminshed". So I ask you, what would Saddams motive be to use such weapons? Surely he doesn't have enough to strike a decisive blow to all of enemies (and he has plenty of enemies), so wouldn't any kind of attack be tantamount to suicide? Sure, he may net himself a few thousand kills before Iraq gets turned into a radioactive sheet of glass, but this is not the behaviour of someone who values thier own life enough to reside in bunkers and employ "doubles" to confuse would be assassins.

<<Sadam ended the inspection regimen in 98 when it was becoming too successful. After the defection of his two brother in laws (who returned and were killed), which was an intel field day for the UN, the UN realized how many of the WMD they had missed. There was a concerted effort to disperse and hide these weapons (managed by a 3 person committee, one of which was the above mentioned brother-in-law, another was the recognizable Tariqu Azzez sp?)>>

Absoloutely false. Washington ordered inspectors out in 98 to make way for it's Desert Fox bombing campaign to punish Iraq for objecting to US spies being sent in with UN inspectors.

As the Washington Post reported on March 2, 1999: "United States intelligence services infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military. The information that the U.S. gathered was used to pick targets for the December 1998 bombing campaign"

The US passed resolutions and laws but looked the other way as a policy of engagement and twin pillars (Iraq and Saudi Arabia). They did not supply the weapons but did supply the intel that helped Sadam fight to a tie with Iran. I don't even want to start the debate of engaging less than perfect players in a region. Shame on us for letting him do it.

The UN inspectors were proven wrong by Sadam's brother in law. This is why Bush is so certain that he has the weapons.

What would Sadam's motive be to use WMD? Control of the Arab world. Elimination of Israel. Revenge against the US (the plot to kill Bush didn't work out so well). He will use them if he feels threatened (see Iran and Kurd comment above).

Desert Fox was ordered as a reprisal for the inspectors being sent home. Did the US have spies in the inspection teams? I'd be pissed if we didn't. Did Sadam try and recruit spy's in the inspection team, yes he did and he was successful. Why would you only defend Sadam. I worry again about your proportional view of the world. Oh yeh, your all about propaganda ( and that rare skill of copy/paste).

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

My last post in this tirade

<<Should we not use our power to make the world a safer place and restore some order to the lives of the Iraqi people?>>

If the real concern was the Iraqi people and I saw a real benefit to them, perhaps I'd be inclined to agree. As it stands, our attitude towards the people of Iraq has been callously indifferent. War is not going to help these people. Would they be better off without Saddam? Of course they would be. We all would be. Will bombing Iraq further towards the stone age put us on a course to peace and stability for the people of Iraq? Not likely at all. If you expect these people to praise us as their liberators and just forget that we instituted the programs that led to so many needless deaths, if you expect them to forget the piles of dead we expect them to climb out from under to embrace us, I fear you may be mistaken. Our aggression is only breeding the next generation of extremists.

A few more thoughts on Iraq:

Every attempt by the Bush Administration to link Iraq to international terrorism has failed. They are too clumsy to make it work (OTB).

"Look at instances of leaders in other countries who are gross violators of human rights but who serve U.S. interests bla bla bla, OTB removed Indonesia reference here bacasue of length of post.

"Two of Hussein's atrocities deserve special mention. In 1975, the United States which, together with Iran and Israel, had been aiding a Kurdish revolt in Iraq, abruptly cut off its support for the Kurds when the Shah of Iran, Washington's close ally, struck a deal with Iraq. As Baghdad turned its full wrath on the Kurds, many of the latter sought U.S. assistance in obtaining asylum. In closed-session testimony, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger explained why the U.S. rejected their appeal for help: "covert action," he declared, "should not be confused with missionary work" (Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/19/76 [Pike Report] in Village Voice, 2/16/76, pp. 85, 87n465, 88n471; William Safire, Safire's Washington, New York: Times Books, 1980, p. 333)."

"MYTH
Iraqi soldiers ripped Kuwaiti babies out of incubators when they invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

FACT
It didn't happen (removed by OTB)

There is no credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraq to Al Qaeda. bla bla bla, the post was too long so OTB cut this.

Now on to our own record of terror.....

Guys/gals,

Sorry for the length of these posts, every time I try and respond with a couple of sentences this idiot calls me a chicken. So this is my last consecutive post for this thread. I'll limit myself to one per day after this. Give me strength.

Iraq is a messed up country, when it is freed of Sadams grip it will still be a messed up country. BUT it will have some proportional rule, it will have huge amounts of western aid and it will not have institutional terror. Is this perfect, no not even close. Is it better, yes. The real question is, is it worth the cost (to us and them). Pre 9/11 the American people said no. It's a small, weak and messed up place, as long as the oil flows just keep a lid in it. I think 9/11 caused Americans to no longer take their security for granted. If a desert thug who couldn't pass the military exam can get WMD including nuclear then no one is safe. In a post 9/11 world the American (and British) governments feel that it's worth the cost now to save us a real catastrophe later. One author has likened this choice to France and UK in 1938. Hitler was beatable in 38. They balked out of fear and the whole world paid the price. I think (warning, not fact just opinion) that in a post 9/11 world the US won't baulk when given this choice.

1975, your cut/paste must not be working, Sadam ascended to his rule in 1979 (a very good year!).

I do agree the Kurds have been *ucked over by many countries including Turkey, Iran and Iraq. They are the largest nation without a state! Northern Iraq, Iran, Southern Turkey would make a nice start, perhaps after we get the Palestinians some of their land back we can work on this one. Or should we leave this to Canada (falls out of chair laughing.....)

Iraq is not involved in international terrorism. I don't think I said they were, if I did I was wrong. They have assisted the PLO from time to time but the secular nature of the dictatorship does not lend itself will to Islamic extremists. Apparently when Iraq does try (killing Bush for instance) they are so clumsy it surprises the CIA how poor their tradecraft is. Apparently they are not used to operating in an environment where they are not in complete control.

Nice anecdote, did you have a point. Was it that Kuwait was not looted or was it that there is a grand conspiracy (see paranoid and propaganda comments several posts ago). In either case your wrong.

OTB

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

<<The most responsible reports are that 227,000 Iraqi's have died in the 10 years since the Gulf war (the lowest of the above). Estimates are that two thirds of these are children. The real question is who killed these people? Sadam had, immediately after the Gulf war, both the financial means (estimates are 30 billion hidden in accounts that the UN has still not found) and stored goods to feed his people. He chose not to and to punish certain groups for their roles in uprisings (mainly Kurds and Shi'ite) he limited the recourses applied to them. The oil for food program was not used by Iraq for a long time because he had no interest in feeding his people. Even recently the UN has complained that Iraq has not placed enough orders for essential humanitarian goods (food, medicine...) and is hundreds of millions of dollars below it's allowed spending on these items.>>

Perhaps you missed it when I pointed out that the leading cause of death was not starvation, it was dehydration due to diarrhea caused by harmful bacteria in water left untreated because WE BOMBED THEIR WATER TREATMENT FACTILITES and now we refuse to let them import water treatment chemicals and equipment. How is this a case of Saddam not distributing aid properly?

And to clear the air here on the idea of Saddam misusing funds, that is frankly impossible. The money coming in to Iraq for the Oil for Food Program NEVER gets into Iraqi hands. It is held in a US account and maintained by the UN. Iraq makes an order, the UN checks it over for objectioable material and then the UN pays the suppliers. So a direct manipulation of these funds is impossible. As for the claim that he mis-uses the supplies, those in charge of the program for the UN have repeatedly stated that they see no evidence of this.


<<In an absurd twist of fate, it is widely believed the Iraqi Kurds are now living much better than they ever have under Sadam's rule because the NFZ and certain US reprisals protect them from regimen attacks. The Kurds have 18% of the population, are allowed to spend 13% of the oil for stuff program money and are (compatibly) thriving.>>

Too bad we let Saddam murder them after WE asked them to rise up. Too bad we let Turkey get away with simiar atrocities against it's own Kurdish people.


<<I don't think organizations that try and measure statistics are leftist propaganda. I think hacks who interpret those numbers to support a blatantly misguided view of the world that fits their paranoid perspective, I think that is propaganda.>>

So I suppose that hundreds of humanitarian organizations are just "hacks" shilling away their propaganda? I suppose the 2 former administrators of the Oil for Food program are just "dupes" who got suckered in by propaganda when they resigned over the inhumanity of he sanctions. I will remind you, the analysis is not mine alone and the facts hardly require analysis. It's not a difficult concept. No clean water, no medicine = people die.

The fact it, it has been stated that even if no weapons are found, the US will want to continue sanctions and seek "regime change", so how could Saddam end it tomorrow?


<<I'm not sure what part of my argument needs work. The callous murder will be removed and the UN will dispense aid, that's the argument all along. >>

In the meantime, we'll let thousands die. That's a good idea. And you know what else we'll do? We'll make it illegal to dispense aid to Iraq, even though the direct distribution of aid circumvents the whole problem you state in your argument, that Saddam is not properly distributing aid. I don't know how much more clear you'd like me to make it.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Don't you think it's a little strange that the US has made it ILLEGAL for charities and humanitarian organizations to distribute aid to Iraqis? I mean, if the goal is to punish the regime, what is the harm in allowing people to help rebuild water treatment infrastructure? What is the harm in distributing medicine and clean water? Those two actions alone would go a long way towards curbing the death toll, yet our government will not allow it and actually PROSECUTES people for attempting to do so. You can be fined and spend up to 12 years in jail for smuggling medicine, clean water and food into Iraq. Doesn't that strike you as being just a little bit wrong?

Here's something from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) on the subject of sanctions being lifted:

"4. "The Pentagon also points out, the Bush administration also points out very, very strongly, that the Iraqi regime itself is to blame for all of these problems. If they simply complied with U.N. Security Council resolutions and disarm, there would be no sanctions, there would be no problem getting medical supplies, doctor, pediatricians, to all parts of Iraq."
--Wolf Blitzer, CNN (11/7/02)

It's not at all clear that sanctions against Iraq would automatically be lifted if the country disarmed; President George Bush the elder declared in 1991, shortly after the sanctions were imposed, "My view is we don't want to lift these sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." His secretary of state James Baker concurred: "We are not interested in seeing a relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power."

President Clinton made a point of saying that his policy toward Iraq was exactly the same as his predecessor's. His secretary of state Madeleine Albright stated in her first major foreign policy address in 1997: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions.... And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful." (See Institute for Public Accuracy, 11/13/98. )"

<<Eliminating sanctions will not feed these people>>

Again, in case you missed it, their biggest problem is not starvation. THEY ARE LITERALLY SHITTING THEMSELVES TO DEATH BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CLEAN WATER!

And we don't have to eliminate sanctions. We could simply allow aid organizations to do their job and help the innocent people of Iraq.

Interesting to note as well is the fact that the administration has NEVER DENIED claims of mass civillian casualties. I refer you to my posting of Madeline Albrights comments when asked on 60 minutes if she thought the deaths of 500,000 children was worth it. Albright said it was indeed worth the cost and made no move to deny the casualty count.

But we haven't reached the most damning depths of US policy yet when it comes to sanctions.

I refer you to a Defense Intelligence Agency document entitled "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities", circulated to all major allied commands in the first days of the Gulf War. It was an analysis of the Iraqi water treament system, the effects of untreated water on the populace and the effects of sanctions. Mentioning, among other things, that chlorine is embargoed under the sanctions, it speculates that "Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons,"

Given that every major water treament plant was attacked during and after the war and 7 out of 8 dams were destroyed, it suggests a deliberate targeting of the Iraqi water supply to attain postwar leverage, a concept military planners admitted to when mapping out a strategy for war in Iraq.

Now I ask you, what is the difference between dropping a bomb loaded with a biological agent and destroying water treatment systems, in full knowledge of the explosion in water-borne dieases that would result, destroying pharmaceutical manufacturing, then restricting access to water treatment chemicals and basic medicines to treat these diseases? They are both biological warfare in my mind.

Does this report get any press at all? No. It surfaced over a year ago and has never been reported in the Western media.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

<<Sadam caused casualties (not caused by sanctions as stated above) are about 227k in a decade.>>

And what decade would this be? Whom did he kill? Where? You'll have to elaborate.


<<Baghdad will not be bombed into submission. The lights will be turned off, the phones won't work. The Republican Guard (approx 6 divisions surrounding Baghdad) will be destroyed. The regular army stationed south of Baghdad (largely ethnic Shi'it) will either surrender or be destroyed. I'd bet largely on the former, this area is a source of many of the uprising and coup attempts against Sadam. Precision guided munitions will limit innocent casualties (yes there will be some). With American Tanks in Iraq, the people will finally have the confidence to rise up against the terror they live under. There will be almost no organized resistance after the air war. The only real risk, both for Iraqi's and US troops are WMD, which is the real reason this will happen next Feb - March.>>

And how do you propose that 6 divisions will be destroyed without signifagant harm to the population of Baghdad? You think they are just going to sit there and let you kill them? Or are they going to rally inside the city and force some very intense urban combat on you. And I wouldn't count on surrender. It would be nice, but I don't want to bet many lives on it.

This is my favourite of your comments above, however. "Precision Guided Munitions". You mean the same ones that were supposed to limit casualties in Afghanistan? Or do you mean the ones that were supposed to limit casualties in the first Gulf War? Or the ones in Serbia? You know, the ones that only hit about half of their intended targets, according to the Pentagon.

<<The US has killed many as a part of war, the Germans could attest to this. I have no idea how many Vietnamese we killed, I don't know that it's the same killing a solder in battle (when he is attaching) and starving children.>>

Killing soldiers is one thing. Slaughtering villages, destroying crops, and bombing out whole countrysides is another thing entirely. What do you think the result of burning crops is? Starving children. What do you think the result of bombing pharmaceutical factories is? People not getting required medicine and dying. What do you think the result of hiring mercenaries to maim, torture, rape and terrorize civillians is? Because the US did all those things in Vietnam, Sudan, and Latin America. I don't think I need to add East Timor, you should understand that all too well by now, but just in case: What do you think the result of sellings arms to a known mass murderer is?

<<They did not supply the weapons but did supply the intel that helped Sadam fight to a tie with Iran>>

So the US never gave Saddam samples of Botulism? Or Anthrax? Never gave him VX? Tuban? Please. Even the mainstream media has picked up on this one.

<<What would Sadam's motive be to use WMD? Control of the Arab world. Elimination of Israel. Revenge against the US (the plot to kill Bush didn't work out so well). He will use them if he feels threatened (see Iran and Kurd comment above).>>

Again, I've made a pretty clear case that this is ridiculous. He couldn't control the Arab world....none of them like him very much and he really isn't that much of a threat to them. If he revealed his weapons, and WMD are only really useful as a tool of state if others know you have them, he would be wiped out. Plain and simple. Israel is not afraid of Saddam Hussein, they have the best military in the region and one of the best in the world, not to mention the best intelligence. Revenge against the US? So he could maybe kill a few hundred thousand Americans, assuming he can find a means to deliver the weapon all the way over here, and then he would be dead and so would the rest of Iraq. Not a good strategy if one likes being alive. And Saddam likes being alive.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Desert Fox was ordered as a reprisal for the inspectors being sent home. Did the US have spies in the inspection teams? I'd be pissed if we didn't. Did Sadam try and recruit spy's in the inspection team, yes he did and he was successful. Why would you only defend Sadam. I worry again about your proportional view of the world. Oh yeh, your all about propaganda ( and that rare skill of copy/paste). >>

Let me rebut by employing my "rare skill of copy and paste".

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting compiled this, showing an incredible lack of consistency in media reporting between 1998 and today:

One of the most common media errors on Iraq is the claim that the U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 because they were "kicked out" or "expelled" (Extra! Update, 10/02). The inspectors, led by Richard Butler, actually left voluntarily, knowing that a U.S. bombing campaign was imminent. This was reported accurately throughout the U.S. press at the time: "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night" (Washington Post, 12/18/98).

Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now

The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.

-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98

To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.

--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02

The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning

--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98/

As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago.

--Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02

The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes.

--AP, 12/16/98

Information on Iraq's programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.

--AP, 9/7/02

Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.

--Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98

It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the regime lacks nuclear material for a bomb and the capability to make weapons.

--Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02

The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes.

--Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98

If he has secret weapons, he's had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them.

--Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02

This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain.

--Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98

What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out.

--John King, CNN, 8/18/02

Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council.

--USA Today, 12/17/98

Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies.

--USA Today, 9/4/02

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

But the most recent irritant was Mr. Butler's quick withdrawal from Iraq on Wednesday of all his inspectors and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iraqi nuclear programs, without Security Council permission. Mr. Butler acted after a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, the American representative to the United Nations, and a discussion with Secretary General Kofi Annan, who had also spoken to Mr. Burleigh.

--New York Times, 12/18/98

America's goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons.... To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations arms inspectors four years ago.

--New York Times editorial, 8/3/02

Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night--at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report.

--Washington Post, 12/18/98

Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons,

--Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02

Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad's continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq's prohibited weapons of mass destruction.

-- Newsday, 12/17/98

The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors' work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons they found. That's disingenuous.

--Newsday editorial, 8/14/02


I'll take you to task over your "cut and paste" shot later.....but it's truly amazing how the story has changed, isn't it? But of course, I'm the victim of "propaganda"....


And again, I'm NOT defending Saddam. I'm telling the truth, plain and simple. The US made a big mistake putting spies in the UNSCOM teams. It undermined any sort of credibility and trust the UN might have built up with Iraq. It was a major blunder, in my opinion. I would like to know where you got the idea that Saddam managed to get his own spies onto the teams, I don't doubt he tried but I never heard he was successful. Please elaborate on this, I'm interested.

I think it's stunning that you manage the exact same posture as then-Secretary Albright. You don't deny casualties in the hundred of thousands, but you attempt to tell us it is worth the cost. Perhaps you should go to Iraq and offer those dying children your argument. Saddam is NOT a credible and imminent threat. He is weak, his country is in a shambles, he is subject to the most intense sanctions ever devised and the most surveilance possible. To suggest inflate him to the status of some sort of comic book super villian is outrageous. He is a thug, a despot and a killer for sure but he isn't some maniacal Lex Luthor type bent on wordl domination and destruction. He needs to go and we can help make that happen but there are better ways than the path of terror we have chosen.

<<1975, your cut/paste must not be working, Sadam ascended to his rule in 1979 (a very good year!).>>

You should read the quote again. nowhere does it mention Saddam being in power. Surprisingly, Iraq DID exist before Saddam Hussein. At that time I believe he was Chair of the Ba'ath party.


<<I do agree the Kurds have been *ucked over by many countries including Turkey, Iran and Iraq. They are the largest nation without a state! Northern Iraq, Iran, Southern Turkey would make a nice start, perhaps after we get the Palestinians some of their land back we can work on this one. Or should we leave this to Canada (falls out of chair laughing.....)>>

I doubt you will do anything of the sort to help the Kurds. They have nothing you want. In fact, military and foreign aid payments to Turkey have steadily increased as they have worked harder to repress their Kurdish population.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

<<Nice anecdote, did you have a point. Was it that Kuwait was not looted or was it that there is a grand conspiracy (see paranoid and propaganda comments several posts ago). In either case your wrong.>>

Of course Kuwait was looted. My point was to demonstrate the kind of disinformation that is out there and influencing policy decisions. The story I referenced is not some whacked out conspiracy, it was a fairly well reported event. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this: I have no time for fringe conspiracy theories about faces on Mars and CIA mind control. My sources are not outlets like paranoidconspiracynuts.com, they tend to be actual reports by NGOS, the UN, press clippings from AP and Reuters and groups like FAIR, independent media, foreign media and the like.

Your attempts to undermine my credibility by trying to associate me with some kind of conspiracy obsessed fringe element may be enough to fool some. But considering the fact that you must resort to this tactic instead of presenting facts speaks volumes.

<<Sorry for the length of these posts, every time I try and respond with a couple of sentences this idiot calls me a chicken.>>

Never once in all the gentlemanly debating I've done here on TERB have I resorted to personally insulting someone in such a base fashion. Strange you would resort to this tactic because it only reinforces the belief that you can't argue me on merit of facts, you must resort to cheap personal insults. How terribly common of you. I questioned you on your convictions, given that you have a history of taking minor pot shots at me and then disappearing.

And as for your comments about cut and paste, I can only throw up my hands and laugh. If I make a claim, people denounce and criticise me for not backing it up. Then I make claims with loads of supporting evidence and all of a sudden I'm a "hack"? Funny stuff indeed and yet more indication you aren't prepared at all for serious debate, considering you offer absoloutely no supporting evidence of your own to back up your position. Amazing, truly amazing.

PS- Curiously, you refrained from commenting on my posts on East Timor and aggressive and illegal actions by the US government. I suppose I should be left to assume that it is all "propaganda", it is after all, the work of a "hack".....albeit a "hack" with thousands of pages of supporting evidence and testimony, including declassified state department documents.....but never mind me, I'm just a left wing "dupe" after all....

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

And remember this, people:

If it's on the internet, it's true!

Your point is well taken and I'd be the first to agree that we must always be questioning what we hear and what we believe. As I've pointed out I'm very confident in my sources, but this does not preclude anyone from questioning or rejecting them.


niplust: Thanks for being concerned about how I choose to spend my time. I find value in what I do here and it keeps me sharp. And I do have a very full life outside of TERB.

How do you know I'm not already being paid to share my opinions? Not here on TERB, of course, but in my private life? Not that money would be a motivator for me to speak out.

<<Dr.

You can save your high and mighty attitude, all you've really proved is that:

You have no life and can spend an infinite amount of time on this

You have access to the Internet

You know how to copy / paste in Windows

Congratulations!

Now I have to waste an hour going over each of your posts and distilling the facts from the fiction and hysterical opinion and propaganda.>>

I almost missed this one.

Contrary to popular belief I spend about an hour compiling my posts, sometimes more if I need to gather more reference. Hardly devoting my life to it. It also helps that my private life is heavily invested in this type of research and my lifestyle and profession give me the luxury to pursue it.

I think I made myself clear on the copy/paste bit. Funny that if I don't provide reference material I get called a liar, but if I do I'm accused of being a hack.

Isn't it amazing that there is more than just porn on the internet? You would do well to avail yourself of this lesson.

If you want to call spending an hour reading a contrary opinion and attempting to rebut it a waste, then fine. I would tend to see it as a learning opportunity and intellectual exercise.

We'll see about fiction and who's been suckered by "propaganda" my friend....

And I almost forgot to thank Travelling Guy for his kind words. I certainly appreciate it and I'm glad some people are reading them.

 

[onthebottom]

<<Sorry for the length of these posts, every time I try and respond with a couple of sentences this idiot calls me a chicken.>>

Never once in all the gentlemanly debating I've done here on TERB have I resorted to personally insulting someone in such a base fashion. ..... How terribly common of you. .....I questioned you on your convictions, given that you have a history of taking minor pot shots at me and then disappearing. ... Isn't it amazing that there is more than just porn on the internet? You would do well to avail yourself of this lesson.

It's the best when someone makes your point for you!

PS- Curiously, you refrained from commenting on my posts on East Timor and aggressive and illegal actions by the US government. I suppose I should be left to assume that it is all "propaganda", it is after all, the work of a "hack".....albeit a "hack" with thousands of pages of supporting evidence and testimony, including declassified state department documents.....but never mind me, I'm just a left wing "dupe" after all....

Saddam is NOT a credible and imminent threat.

I did refrain. I said I didn't want to get entangled in an "engagement" discussion (like should we or should we not deal with China given their human rights record...) Mostly out of fear of your "thousands of pages".

The real debate is this last quote I've taken out of context to keep to my 1 post per day commitment. To make this statement is absurd. Why?

In 98 UNSCOM found VX residue on an "improperly cleaned" missile. This is fact, look in your thousands of pages and you will find it. It is what caused the inspections to be ended (Sadam's reaction). But more importantly, what do you think has happened to his missile and VX programs since 98. Did he voluntarily stop them (I'd like to see precedent of that in his actions) or has he maintained and grown these in secret.

Iraq currently has about 600 T-72 tanks, 300 aircraft and an army of 500,000 including 17 divisions (80,000 and 6 divisions of which are Republican Guard). This is the strongest or second strongest (depending on how you measure IRAN) military in the region. This is a threat, especially if the deterrent and containment continue to weaken and the US is limited in what bases it can use and the number of troops it's allowed by the countries for their defense. Think for a minute if the US took the approach of the UK and left the region to someone else to manage (or itself). Is that a world you'd like to live in.

In 1990 Iraq build a workable nuclear weapon (without the fissile material). US intelligence believes that Iraq could enrich uranium in approximately 5-10 years, if they began after the inspectors left in 1999 (late 98 actually) US intelligence believes they could be ready as early as 2004.

This is not an if, but a when. Iraq has the uranium, has the technology and know how to enrich it and has built a workable bomb 10 years ago. Sadam also has the desire.

Defectors have argued that Iraq has up to 40 al-Husseins (range 600 kms).

"The U.S. Intelligence community believes that if left to its own devices, Iraq is likely to acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking the US within the next 15 years".


Is this what you meant by "Saddam is NOT a credible and imminent threat. "

OTB

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I'll respect your desire to limit the discussion, for now at least, and I'll be happy to get down to the "real debate" as you see it.

I think I've stated 2 or 3 times here on TERB some very well-reasoned opinions on why Iraq is not a threat. I even made the argument in my recent postings to you, but given your position I wonder if you bothered to read them all. But very well, I'll reiterate and expand.

First let's talk about this VX that was found on an "improperly cleaned" missile and your assertation that this was the pretext for Saddam ending the inspections (never mind that I've already established that Washington ended the inspections).

You aren't telling the whole story here by a long shot, and the fragment of the story you share is loaded with innacuracy.

Let's explore the REAL story here and see if it leads us to the same conclusions.

First of all, no one should be surprised that Iraq had VX. Sure, Iraq denied it for a long time but it eventually revealed (of it's own volition) the existence of a facility used to research and produce V-series nerve agents to UNSCOM. The site was inspected and quantities of VX and a VX stabilising agent were found. Speaking to Iraqi scientists it was found that their VX program was flawed in a few areas, they were unable to produce a sufficiently stable V-type compound, resulting in a poor quality of agent with a greatly reduced shelf-life. This was confirmed by UNSCOM and the site was decontaminated and destroyed.

Some time later it was discovered that Iraq had destroyed a quantity of missiles with chemical/biological warheads and buried them in the desert. Iraq led UNSCOM to the site and they excavated it to find missile fragments. Iraq claimed that the missiles were used for biological weapons and the chemical warheads had been loaded with some kind of alcohol solution. UNSCOM didn't believe them and had the fragments tested at 3 different labs.

It is important to note here that these missile fragments are the "impropely cleaned" missile you refer to. You seem to suggest this was a functional weapon when in fact the weapon was destroyed, multiple weapons in fact, not anywhere near the sensational media claims of 20,000 warheads however. In this case it was 46, with 20 suspected to be containing CWs.

You state also that VX residue was found. This is simply not true. What was found is a bit of a controversy.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

The US lab concluded that there was evidence of a VX degradation compound and samples of an unidentified non-phosphorous compound

The French had similar findings, but also reported that this compund is similar to some types of industrial detergents and could be applied to "clean" biological agents as well.

The Swedish report was inconclusive as far as CW related compunds were concerned, but did find evidence of other types of chemical degradation agents and the same non-phosphorous compound.

So in reality we can only infer that Iraq armed these warheads with VX or another V or G type nerve agent. It could have been Sarin or Tabou. However I think it's pretty likely that there was at least some VX warheads in the mix.

The real issue here is that these weapons were not functional. We are talking about fragments of destroyed missiles. So your statement is misleading from the outset and really does little to further the case that Iraq is a threat, considering it unilaterally destroyed these weapons. Most likely in a foolish attempt to hide their existence from UNSCOM. It should also be restated that the existence of the VX plant was volunteered by Iraq.

This is where the controversy becomes interesting. You claim that this was Iraq's reason for ending inspections. Iraq never ended inspections and the VX issue was a very small component. But let's have a look at what happened and judge, shall we?

It was around the same time that controversy exploded (in Iraq and other nations, but not widely reported in America until a few years later) over US spies on the UNSCOM team. Iraq was extremely concerned about the inspections serving as a vehicle to gather US intelligence for future attacks, and they had evidence to support the idea. Iraq was also upset at the failure of the Oil for Food program and the effects of sanctions and almost daily bombings by the US and UK.

Iraq did not throw out the inspectors. It didn't even ask them to leave. They said, in essence, "stop spying on us, and until you can ensure that UNSCOM is in fact an objective party we will restrict access to sites we choose". Not an unreasonable request, in my mind.

Suppose for minute that the US actually agreed to the UN call for a ban on chemical and biological weapons (in reality, the US voted against it, the only nation in the world to do so besides Israel). The UN plan would require an inspection component to ensure compliance. Now what if the US found that there were spies on the inpsection team gathering intelligence for a future terror attack? Would the US allow this in order to comply with the UN? Of course not, it's beyond ridiculous. So it is easy to understand why Iraq would be unwilling to tolerate such a thing, and given what actually ended up happening a very reasonable request.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Now why is the issue of spies on the UNSCOM team such a big deal? Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? Perhaps in a Tom Clancy novel, but in the real world there are serious problems. Not the least of which is the fact that UNSCOM needed to have total credibility and impartiality in order to get as much Iraqi co-operation as possible as well as to protect the credibility of the UN. US spies on the team shot all of that to hell. It called into question the whole VX report, allowing Iraq to claim it was a US fabrication and casting doubt on the teams findings. The fact that 3 chemical analyses found no evidence of actual VX played right into Iraqi hands as well and allowed them to further discredit the team. And really, objectively, one does have to wonder that if the US had spies (and it did) could the US have planted evidence? This doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, given Iraq had already revealed it's VX program, but much like here in the West, people who actually got to hear Iraqs accusations weren't exactly scrutinizing them.

Note that throughout all of this, UNSCOM remained in Iraq negotiating a settlement to allow inspections to resume. It wasn't until the US told Chief Inspector Butler to evacuate his team to make way for Desert Fox that negotiations were severed and inspectors left. True to Iraqi fears, the Desert Fox campaign used targets selected by US spies on the UNSCOM team and intelligence gleaned from UNSCOM work in the region.

Desert Fox was not approved by the UN. In fact, no permanent member of the UN knew it was definitely going to happen until the bombs started falling, curiously timed to begin as major evening news broadcasts in the West were starting up. Just like the no-fly zones it remains an illegal act of aggression.

So this is the real story, a little more nuanced than the brief paragraph you gave it. And it certainly can lead us to some different conclusions. Why inspections stopped should be clear now and I don't think I need to point that out.

The information used to compile this was taken from the actual UNSCOM report to Security Council President Sir Jeremy Greenstock. The report was based on a meeting of 21 international chemical weapons experts to discuss the VX situation in Iraq. It was submitted by Richard Butler, Chief Inspector UNSCOM on October 26, 1998. As far as the US spying is concerned, the UN maintains that the US had spies infiltrate the UNSCOM team for three years. Other details are reports from UNSCOM, Iraqi press releases, and statements of former inspectors with UNSCOM, Richard Butler and Scott Ritter.

Let me point out to you again that there is a big difference between the functional "improperly cleaned" missile you describe and the actual case of fragments of destroyed missiles. If your intent was to prove Iraq's VX capability, that was never in much serious debate and better examples exist than your fictional missile.

To me, what this story shows clearly is the effectiveness of the weapons inspections and the need to maintain the impartiality of the inspection teams. It also points to the fact that Iraq's capabilities have been severely diminished, but more on that later.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Now on to your statements about the Iraqi military and it's threat to regional stability.

Your numbers are sound and tend to concur with most sources. However, the numbers do not tell the whole story. Another case of the whole truth going by the waysdie to support your argument.

Recall that you said you expected the Iraqi army to mostly surrender and that they would be easily defeated. This was said when you wanted to counter my notion of a protracted war in which many civillians would die, to say nothing of military losses.

Now to argue the Iraqi threat, Saddam suddenly has this massive and powerful army that threatens the region and indeed the world. Where has this easily defeated and likely to surrender foe gone? You should really decide what you believe about the strength and morale of the Iraqi army. For now all I see is you inflating and deflating in order to best serve your contentions.

Yes, your numbers are credible. What you don't tell us is that while the order of battle remains very large, restictions on arms trading have left them without new arms and replacement parts for a decade (now having only what they can manage to smuggle, which is not enough).

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) informs us that Iraqi military readiness and sustainability is "severely diminished from 1990 levels" and that efforts to re-capitalize and restructure it's military would "require require levels of spending Iraq could not sustain in the near term without crippling recovery and expansion of oil production. Past experience indicates that Iraq will be highly inefficient in dealing with the management of the recapitalization and technological restructuring of its forces."

Critical is the lack of replacement parts for tanks, aircraft and helicopters, all of which are notoriously maintenance intensive. Also critical is the lack of more modern surface to air missile systems and reliance on crude soviet SA series launchers that are over a decade old. This is not to mention the fact that the most basic weapons have not been sufficiently replaced to ensure maximum operability.

In short, the Iraqi military can boast a lot of manpower, but it can't effectively back that up with much in the way of reliable equipment or firepower. In modern warfare, this is crucial. They are behind 2 of their neighbors in terms of order of battle, Iran and Turkey. Turkey enjoys major US military aid as well as being the 4th largest recipient of foreign aid from the US. Iran also enjoys some preferential treatment when it comes to military purchases from the US due to it's neighbor.

But the reall issue you are projecting here is that Iraq is a threat to the region. I have some serious reservations about this.

If he is such a threat now, with a massively diminshed capacity to wage war, why wasn't he such a threat when we helped him to power in the late 70's? Why wasn't he a threat in the 80's when he was gassing Iran and Kurds?

The fact is, no one in the region views Saddam as a threat. At the arguable height of his military power he could hardly hold off against Iran.

His neighbors, whom you seem so concerned for as to go to war for them, have largely normalized relations with Baghdad (within the framework of the sanctions). Saudi Arabia has re-opened it's border and there are continous flights from Riyadh to Baghdad. Syria has done the same. Egypt, Sudan, Jordan have all restored a fairly normal relationship with Iraq.

Most telling of regional sentiment, I think, is how many are unwilling to support another war. Only Kuwait and Israel are fully behind the effort. Turkey resisted, but under pressure has agreed to allow US forces to use Turkey as a staging area (this is called "paying the piper" for the US looking the other way as Turkey murdered it's own Kurdish population while we condemned Saddam for the same crime, and for being #4 in foreign aid).

Most of the region is opposed to war. They know Saddam will have his work cut out for him rebuilding his country if sanctions are ever lifted and the capital needed to sustain a war just doesn't exist.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

But this brings us back to chemical and biological weapons as the next pretext to war. And I'll try to wrap this up briefly as my bed is calling me.

UNSCOM estimates that pre-1998 it eliminated about 90-95% of Iraqi weapons. The disputed 5 to 10% is a subject of debate. Some say it may represent weapons used or destroyed in the Gulf War, others say Iraq destroyed them in order to conceal their existence (as it did with many of it's weapons), and still others suggest that there are still stockpiles hidden in Iraq.

The best way to determine the truth is to continue with inspections and allow inspectors into any site they choose without warning. This is happening as we speak. Saturday or Sunday Iraq will disclose all of it's weapons programs to the UN. Will they try to lie and cover things up? Very possible, but with a strong inspection regime the lies will not last long, just as the lies were uncovered during the 90's string of inspections. These things are actually pretty easy to track, given the very specialised chemicals and equipment required for their manufacture. This is also why it is unlikely that weapons programs have been restarted.

Let's also recall that the majority of Iraqs CWs were composed of Sarin and Tabou, both with a shelf-life of 5 years. If there were stockpiles of it we didn't find, it is harmless goo by now.

"If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof,"
Scott Ritter, Former UNSCOM Inspector.

While the UN agrees that Iraq is technically capable of restarting it's weapons programs post-1998 there are some considerations.

" "Technically capable," however, is the important phrase here. If no one were watching, Iraq could do this. But they would have to start completely from scratch, having been deprived of all equipment, facilities and research because of UNSCOM's work. They would have to procure the complicated tools and technology required through front companies, which would be detected. The manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits vented gasses that would have been detected by now if they existed. The manufacture of nuclear weapons emits gamma rays that would have been detected by now if they existed. We have been watching, via satellite and other means, and we have seen none of this."

Scott Ritter, Former UNSCOM Inspector

So the WMD argument is kind of shot as well considering inspections have thus far been succesful. Hans Blix contends that it will only take about six months to establish some fundamental truths about the weapons programs, so why not wait it out instead of interfering by continuing to conduct attacks outside the no-fly zones (seemingly happening every time inspectors are entering a site, suggesting some provocation).

What does that leave us?

We both seem to agree that the terror connection has absoloutely no merit, and rightly so.

Is it the brutal killing and repression of segments of his population? Please, if we took military action against everyone who did this we'd be bombing most of our allies, most of the world even.

So this is what I mean when I say Saddam is not a credible or imminent threat. Disagree if you like.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I just noticed that a chunk of my post was missing, so I'll try to recover it when I get back to my office. But to sum up what I think is missing, I simply restated my opinion on Saddams nuclear capabilities and his prospects for future use and development, which, without getting into it, are very questionable.

 

[onthebottom]

We are getting closer to the point

Now on to your statements about the Iraqi military and it's threat to regional stability.

Your numbers are sound and tend to concur with most sources. However, the numbers do not tell the whole story. Another case of the whole truth going by the waysdie to support your argument.

Recall that you said you expected the Iraqi army to mostly surrender and that they would be easily defeated. This was said when you wanted to counter my notion of a protracted war in which many civillians would die, to say nothing of military losses.

Now to argue the Iraqi threat, Saddam suddenly has this massive and powerful army that threatens the region and indeed the world. Where has this easily defeated and likely to surrender foe gone? You should really decide what you believe about the strength and morale of the Iraqi army. For now all I see is you inflating and deflating in order to best serve your contentions.

Yes, your numbers are credible. What you don't tell us is that while the order of battle remains very large, restictions on arms trading have left them without new arms and replacement parts for a decade (now having only what they can manage to smuggle, which is not enough).

If he is such a threat now, with a massively diminshed capacity to wage war, why wasn't he such a threat when we helped him to power in the late 70's? Why wasn't he a threat in the 80's when he was gassing Iran and Kurds?

The fact is, no one in the region views Saddam as a threat. At the arguable height of his military power he could hardly hold off against Iran.


Most of the region is opposed to war. They know Saddam will have his work cut out for him rebuilding his country if sanctions are ever lifted and the capital needed to sustain a war just doesn't exist.

Dr.

While I didn't quote the VX posts here due to space limitations I think you agreed that there were missiles (non operable) and evidence of chemical weapons (perhaps not operable). The importance of this point to me was that it showed intent and concealment.

It's nice when we can agree on facts. I understand your confusion about my seemingly contrary views of this fact. Here is what I am thinking. I think that Iraq is not, in it's current state a threat to Turkey and Iran. The could be against Syria but their logistics would never survive the desert to Damascus. Same answer for Saudi Arabia. Kuwait on the other hand is in serious trouble.

So if they are strong (they are big but not well maintained, we agree on that, and they have no air force worth worrying about if your the US) why would they surrender under US attack?

I believe there are two tiers of troops in Iraq, those who will die with Sadam and those that will run if given the chance. The sight of US Tanks driving on Baghdad will do two things. It will convince the Iraqi solder that they will loose it's just a matter of time. If this is the case (and I'm sure you disagree) it will remove the terror of reprisal for going against the regime and surrendering or switching sides and joining a popular revolt. I know you will mock this as an unrealistically optimistic view (like say a 100 hour ground war in 1991) but I think it is very likely. Very few Iraqi's are supportive of the regimen, not that we are well loved, but when it becomes clear that the current game is over everyone will try and make a better deal and grab power, fighting for Sadam will not serve their interests. I don't think this applies to the Republican Guard which will fight hard.

He was a threat in the 70's and 80's, I don't understand your point. If it was that the US should not have supported him, I think everyone agrees with this. It’s much easier to play quarterback (if you have to play at all) on Monday morning. But yet I digress to the engagement topic.

"The fact is that no one in the region views Sadam as a threat." While you have said many things I don't agree with and have drawn conclusions I don't believe are accurate this may be the first time you've lied outright. Everyone in the region fears Iraq. The fact that they are working with him is only a sign that they believe he is a reality they have to live with. The containment strategy the UN has employed against Iraq is ending and cannot be saved. There is neither the political capital or will to keep containment going (due in some cases to the "dieing children" propaganda from people like yourself). (yes children died, that's not the propaganda, who killed them and why they died is). There are only two choices going forward, deterrence and invasion. The region is expecting the former thus they are working with Iraq, the latter is what will happen. Many of the regions leaders will be greatly relieved if the US delivers on it's promise of invasion, even if the Arab street will not allow them to assist.

OTB

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I never debated any intent or concealment. I think it was obvious they tried to conceal the extent of their programs. Fortunately UNSCOM did an incredible job of eliminating or accounting for the vast majority of the weapons and related facilities. Furthermore, this good work should be allowed to continue with the new inspections regime and not be interfered with.

What I debated was your not telling the whole story, perhaps out of your stated desire for brevity. This is why I choose not to limit myself becuase accuracy and fairness demands more than a scant paragraph at times.

<<I think that Iraq is not, in it's current state a threat to Turkey and Iran. The could be against Syria but their logistics would never survive the desert to Damascus. Same answer for Saudi Arabia.>>

So where is the "imminent" threat? Considering it could take more than a decade for Iraq to rearm itself to pre-1991 levels I hardly see how this is a pressing and time-sensitive matter. This also assumes that restrictions on arms sales are lifted, which I wouldn't reccomend and not even the most bleeding heart liberal could argue with. Lifting economic sanctions and embargoes on critical medicines and public infrastructure is essential, but I see no problem with, and in fact reccomend, an extended ban on military exports to Iraq for a loooong time to come. Which would severely hamper Iraqs ability to wage a war anytime in this generation, unless of course they just like being beat down.


<<Kuwait on the other hand is in serious trouble.>>

Not with in excess of 20,000 US troops doing "training" there. Not with navy patrols of the Gulf region armed with enough Tomahawk missiles to level Baghdad. I have no problem with a military presence aimed at deterring Iraq, that is one thing, but invasion is just jumping a little too far ahead in the process. There are alternatives to war that are very achievable, but will the US be patient enough to allow this to happen? Besides, Saddam knows just as well as the next guy that invading Kuwait would only serve to bring down the wrath of America again, and with full UN support. Credit the man with a bit of intelligence.


<<I believe there are two tiers of troops in Iraq, those who will die with Sadam and those that will run if given the chance. The sight of US Tanks driving on Baghdad will do two things. It will convince the Iraqi solder that they will loose it's just a matter of time.>>

I agree that Iraq would ultimately lose in a conflict with the US, but I'm not sure how easy they would make it. Consider the ammount of resentment built up over the years. US tanks advancing of Baghdad might only strengthen the resolve of many to protect their sovereignty, dubious as that may be. Sure there will be deserters, but don't underestimate the resolve of people defending their own nation. Do you think Americans would have just turned over and accepted Soviet rule if they marched on Washington?

The trouble with instigating a popular revolt is that the US has very little interest in the "populace" running the future of Iraq. They want to install leadership of their choosing and if the people aren't agreeable to the new ruler things could get very complicated. Considering that one of the suggestions for immediate post-war Iraq governance is a military rule led by Gen. Tommy Franks until the country is stable, I think there will be a lot of popular resistance even post-war. This is, of course only one possibility and other models are being considered but they need to meet the test of popular support to succeed and finding that support may be very challenging to the US, again given the mistrust and outright hatred much of the region has for America.

This war will differ greatly from the first Gulf War. It's aim is not to repel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, it is to wrest control of the country from Saddam. This means urban combat, not a simple open desert turkey shoot. This means a lot more ground work and not so many bombing and strafing runs. I don't mock your belief that this will be a nice quick clean conflict, there is nothing funny about it. I just suggest you don't underestimate your opponent.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

<<but when it becomes clear that the current game is over everyone will try and make a better deal and grab power>>

I'd generally agree with that, but the question is WHEN will this become clear? I'd suggest it may be further off than you count on. Also keep in mind that many people will not be fighting for Saddam, they will be fighting for Iraq, they will be fighting for children and wives lost to disease and wayward "smart" bombs, they will be fighting for their dignity as arguably the nation where civilization began. If the choice is between two evils, often it is better with the Devil you know....

<<He was a threat in the 70's and 80's, I don't understand your point.>>

Not according to the administration at the time, including folks like Donald Rumsfeld. They were all to happy to sell him arms and cut favorable deals with him. And what was the reaction when it was confirmed Iraq was using chemical weapons in Iran and elsewhere? A strongly worded letter of condemnation and the sale of dual-use helicopters. Even after the Gulf War, the US was all too happy to look the other way while Saddam crushed a rebellion that the US urged. US media reported it as a riot that Saddam suppressed with the military, the fact is it was a full scale rebellion encouraged by the CIA and the US propaganda radio being broadcast into Iraq. Did they do anything to help these people? Nope. Left them to die. And it wasn't the first time the US urged rebellion and failed to support it, which is why you will find "popular revolt" a hard thing to accomplish, the trust just isn't there in the majority of the population.