Get Your War On

[Dr. Gonzo]

<<It’s much easier to play quarterback (if you have to play at all) on Monday morning.>>

This is the excuse everyone makes for things like this. Fact is, the US knew EXACTLY what Saddam was doing and did nothing until many years after the fact. Just as the US knows exactly what is happening in East Timor, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc...ad naseum...

This is pure BS reasoning in my mind. It would be one thing if somehow the US didn't know what Iraq was doing with all the toys that the US and others were selling him, but the fact is the whole world knew and pretty much ignored it. The UN issued a condemnation of the use of CWs, the US issued a similar statement and that's about it. Now the US STILL (as of last month) will not agree on an international ban on chemical and biological weapons. Put your money where your mouth is.


<<"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.>>

Amazing. I provide pretty objective evidence that the region isn't afraid of him and I'm a liar. But let's examine your argument.

<<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>>

While I don't think anyone in the region would shed a tear if Saddam ate a bullet tomorrow, I maintain that these people have very little to fear from him. They know all too well the weakness of his forces in terms of sustainability, they know all too well that at the slightest hint of aggression Iraq will be bombed even further into the stone age. Many countries in the region are eager for sanctions to be relaxed so they can resume business in Iraq, which was a pretty decent little economy before '91. Not to mention the fact that Iraq will need plenty of help reconstructing public infrastructure post-sanctions and you can bet many contractors in the region are drooling at those prospects.

But if they really thought Saddam was such a threat, why haven't these countries appealed to the UN to declare Iraq a threat? Surely theirs could be the most compelling argument? This strikes me as the rational thing to do, not to mention the only legal thing to do. So why haven't they? They have nothing to fear from him now, even you agree to this, so why not band together and approach the UN? Most are members. They would have nothing to lose.

Fact is, most of these nations would prefer to settle their own affairs and prefer the US and UN stay out of it.

<<The containment strategy the UN has employed against Iraq is ending and cannot be saved. >>

Where is the evidence of this? Sanctions are not being lifted, even in areas where they should be relaxed, there is still intense military pressure from the US, inspectors are on the ground doing their work, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have pressured Saddam to commit to inspections and the destruction of his weapons programs and continue to maintain that pressure (which Saddam is way more likely to heed given their kinship). I see nothing ending, but in fact new beginning in the history of the region and a renewed movement for peaceful resolution. And many of the problems with the UN strategy are completely salvagable, granted diligence and a true desire to see peace in the region and for the people of Iraq.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

<<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).>>

I think I made it VERY clear why those children (and adults) are dying and who is ultimately responsible for their deaths. I'll forgive you if you didn't bother to read that very large segment of my posts. Otherwise I'd suggest you do your homework, then look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself where your values are. Let me sum it up really quickly again for you.

1: We received a report on the weaknesses of the water treatment infrastructure in Iraq.

2: We bombed the majority of water treatment facilities in the country as well as 7 of 8 dams. We did this knowing full well from the report that this would result in a serious if not catastrophic outbreak of water-borne disease.

3: We bombed Iraq's pharmaceutical production facilities, destroying their ability to manufacture critical treatments.

4: We denied access to medicines necessary to treat these and other diseases. We also denied access to the parts required to repair the treatment facilities and chemicals to make them operational. Again knowing full well the implications.

5: We find that a decade later an estimated (depending of who's estimates you believe) 200 to 500,000 Iraqis have suffered "excess mortality due to sanctions", 60% of them children under 7. Studies also find the leading cause of death to be water-borne disease. I will also add that childhood leukemia rates in Iraq are the highest in the world per capita, due to the use of depleted uranium rounds. Note as well that the US government has never denied or challenged UNICEF's figure of 500,000. In fact when asked about it, Madeline Albright stated that "the price is worth it".

6: We've established very clearly that Saddam cannot misspend Oil for Food money. He never receives it, he simply makes orders and the UN fills the orders and pays the suppliers directly. Also note that 2/3 of the money goes to the UN for war damages and 1/3 to actual aid spending. We've also established that Saddam is not withholding aid from his people, the UN has never found clear evidence to support this. What has been found is logistical problems delivering the aid due to conditions in the country and poor training.

So what we have is a case of the US knowingly creating the conditions for disease and then denying the means to treat the disease or prevent it. This is biological warfare. And given the numbers of dead, it is also arguably genocide.

I ask you, do you have better evidence to support this being "propaganda" than simply your word and opinion? Until I see it you are spitting on hundreds of thousands of graves by so callously shirking your responsibility for those deaths. Again I say shame on you, sir.

<<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.>>

Again, I agree that no one is likely to shed a tear for Saddam, but most would prefer the US just stay the hell out of regional affairs. They prefer the devil they know, especially a devil under the scrutiny of the UN. The Arab Street as you call it, likes to manage it's own affairs even between rivals. There is a certain solidarity there that even those who despise Saddam would prefer him to America or anyone else intervening in the matter. It's sort of like the mafia, no one else can touch a "made" guy.

The best option is to continue to deter, allow the inspection process to unfold and if and when Saddam is disarmed, follow up with continued surveilance under the UN, bans on arms and arms-related sales and removal of non-military sanctions. This is the best credible and peaceful course and the course the Saudis and others are advising Iraq and the UN to take.

Invasion shold be an absoloute last resort and we aren't near the end of the rope yet. We're close, but we're not there yet....

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

One more thing for you to consider:

Let's suppose for a moment that somehow we are not even somewhat responsible for the majority of those deaths. Let's just go with something above debate here.

Did we or did we not deliberately target public infrastructure, inculding but not limited to water treatment facilities in the Gulf War?

I think you'll find without a doubt that we did. And that it was widely endorsed as a good strategy to put pressure on Saddam and possibly inflame dissent.

So let's see what the Geneva Convention has to say about these sorts of actions:

The Geneva Conventions (Protocol 1, Part IV, Chapter III, Article 54) lay out some of the groundwork for us. It is clear that the "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited." They specify that "objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population," including water and food supplies, are not legal military targets.

Do you need to be reminded that the US agreed to the Geneva Conventions and that the Conventions are legally binding? Or that violating the above prohibitions would constitute a war crime and possibly crime against humanity? Or that even if the US decided it wanted out of the agreement, it wouldn't matter, they apply to every nation regardless of their disgreement or refusal to sign the document?

Furthermore, Part IV, Chapter I, Article 48 strictly states that combatants "shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives"

Again, failure to observe this would result in a war crime and/or crime against humanity.

And then people wonder why the US wants to be exempt from the World Court....

 

[Jay_toronto]

Yet to come

In spite of his electoral successes, President Bush is doing a very poor job of conducting the war on terror.

He's already demonstrated that he has no stomach for nation building. Afghanistan is in a chaotic state and only Kabul appears to be under UN control. The warlords rule the rest of the country, poppy production has tripled and living conditions for women has not improved. The Taliban chain of command has been left untouched and is biding it's time. I fear that it's only a matter of time before we see an Afghan Tet Offensive.

The real tragedy of 9/11 is that to the Muslim world the USA has become a very strong arm of Israeli foreign policy. Israel already has weapons of mass destruction and the Likud Party has never given up it's goal of a Greater Israel. This means the annexation of The West Bank and Gaza Strip and the expulsion of the Palestinians. It's a vicious cycle; for every suicide bombing that occurs, more land is expropriated for Jewish settlers. In the Muslim world, Arial Sharon is viewed as a war criminal who willingly allowed the slaughter of innocent civilians in refugee camps in Lebanon.

Iraq is only a prelude of what's to come. The USA and Israel already know that within two to five years Iran will have nuclear weapons. Iran is the REAL enemy. An Islamic Republic with nuclear weaopns to counter the Israeli arsenal, is an absolute nightmare to the Israeli government. The USA needs cheap reserves of oil to conduct a future military campaign against Iran, therefore Saddam must be eliminated. President Bush's platform for re-election in 2004 will be war with Iran.

I pray that these events do not occur. Unfortunately the Israeli Labour Party is in disarray and is no threat to the obdurate Likud. And, with oil men like Bush and Cheney calling the shots in Washington, I see copious amounts of bloodshed in the forseeable future.

 

[onthebottom]

We are finding more common ground

<<

Again, I agree that no one is likely to shed a tear for Saddam, but most would prefer the US just stay the hell out of regional affairs. They prefer the devil they know, especially a devil under the scrutiny of the UN. The Arab Street as you call it, likes to manage it's own affairs even between rivals. There is a certain solidarity there that even those who despise Saddam would prefer him to America or anyone else intervening in the matter. It's sort of like the mafia, no one else can touch a "made" guy.

The best option is to continue to deter, allow the inspection process to unfold and if and when Saddam is disarmed, follow up with continued surveilance under the UN, bans on arms and arms-related sales and removal of non-military sanctions. This is the best credible and peaceful course and the course the Saudis and others are advising Iraq and the UN to take.

Invasion shold be an absoloute last resort and we aren't near the end of the rope yet. We're close, but we're not there yet....

I disagree that the leaders in region would "prefer the US just stay the hell away", if that were true it would be very tempting for the American people to resort to their isolationist tendencies and walk away. I can't prove this though.

I think it's a bit simple to say the best option is to continue to deter. Deterrence is much less intrusive than containment. I can easily see sanctions being completely dissolved. You have to ask yourself, why are there inspectors in Iraq today, the ONLY reason is because the US provided a credible threat of invasion. With the exception of the UK the other P-5 countries have folded and are more interested in participating in the economic boom of rebuilding Iraq than controlling the dictator.

I think invasion will be the last resort, we disagree on how close we are to that decision. Iraq has filed it's paperwork with the UN, when it is discovered they have lied and hidden WMD programs it will hit the fan.

OTB

 

[TravellingGuy]

Re: We are finding more common ground

You have to ask yourself, why are there inspectors in Iraq today, the ONLY reason is because the US provided a credible threat of invasion.
OTB

Iraq has filed it's paperwork with the UN, when it is discovered they have lied and hidden WMD programs it will hit the fan.
OTB

You assume they have lied, you assume they have WMD. I am not making an assumption either way, I'll wait for the findings, but I'll ask you this, what if Iraq hasn't lied, what if Iraq has no WMD, would you then admit that the US is completely wrong in its offensive approach?

 

[Goober Mcfly]

You guys STILL debating this?

 

[onthebottom]

I'm Done

Traveling Guy,

If there are no WMD there is no reason for an invasion. I don't think the US would go this far if they didn't already have the answer. The old lawyer trick, never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

Goober,

I'm done, back to hobbying.

OTB

 

[TravellingGuy]

Re: I'm Done

If there are no WMD there is no reason for an invasion. I don't think the US would go this far if they didn't already have the answer. The old lawyer trick, never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

Thats assuming this invasion has anything to do with WMD, it also has to do with changing the regime, the US does not want Saddam in power, they make that common knowledge. Its a witch hunt and the US is hoping that based on past experiences that Iraq has hidden things before that they are hiding something now.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

<<I disagree that the leaders in region would "prefer the US just stay the hell away", if that were true it would be very tempting for the American people to resort to their isolationist tendencies and walk away.>>

Well, you are welcome to disagree. But I wonder about these "isolationist tendencies". Are these the same ones that have allowed for an extensive and unprecendented history of US intervention post WWII? Are these the same isolationist tendencies manifest in things like the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and countless wars, covert and overt, directly or by proxy?

<<I can't prove this though.>>

Have you considered that maybe it's because it isn't true and that all evidence drives at the opposite notion? That maybe most people fear America a hell of a lot more than they will ever fear a second-rate little tyrant like Saddam?

<<Deterrence is much less intrusive than containment.>>

Which might actually leave us with far fewer dead children on our hands, a more credible and palatable strategy to present to the region and opponents, and something that may actually punish the regime as opposed to it's peasents.

<<I can easily see sanctions being completely dissolved.>>

Then I guess you weren't listening when Clinton, both Bushes, Rumsfeld, Rice, Albright and other administration officials stated over the years that sanctions would not end so long as Saddam was in power.

<<You have to ask yourself, why are there inspectors in Iraq today, the ONLY reason is because the US provided a credible threat of invasion.>>

You also have to ask yourself why the US decided to ultimately undermine and destroy the original, functional inspections regime. If that hadn't happened it is possible that UNSCOM could have accomplished their task by now.

<<With the exception of the UK the other P-5 countries have folded and are more interested in participating in the economic boom of rebuilding Iraq than controlling the dictator.>>

Weren't you saying earlier that everyone knows he's a threat? In any case, maybe this should tell you just how much of a threat the rest of the world considers Iraq to be.

<<I think invasion will be the last resort, we disagree on how close we are to that decision.>>

It depends on who you refer to when you say "we". If you mean "we" as in the US, then the decision is already made. Invasion is the only option and the only problem is finding pretext to do so in order to obtain a minimal veneer of legality. Even this, ultimately will not stop "us", it's been said time and time again that the US will act with or without UN approval (not exactly fo teh first time either).

If you take "we" to mean the UN, then I think we are much further away from such a decision. I think there is a real international desire to see a peaceful resolution here, allowing for the full inspections process and examination of documentation and more generous interpretations of what "material breach" constitutes (have you ever read that resolution? It is nearly impossible NOT to breach).

Going to war without UN approval, while nothing really new for the US, is at the end of the day illegal. It remains to be seen if anyone would actually stand up for this principle or not, (few have in the past) but technically it could even be argued that in such a scenario member states could be called upon to defend Iraq from illegal invasion. This, of course, is beyond reason to imagne actually happening. But it is technically what should happen in the case of unilateral US action.

<<Iraq has filed it's paperwork with the UN, when it is discovered they have lied and hidden WMD programs it will hit the fan.>>

I won't bother to comment. It's been covered.


<<If there are no WMD there is no reason for an invasion. I don't think the US would go this far if they didn't already have the answer. The old lawyer trick, never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.>>

It reminds me more of tricks more recently employed by people like the Stasi and KGB. Stalin-like show trials, where all state evidence is "secret" but always so overwhelming as to be beyond question.

If this evidence is so certain, why hasn't it ever been passed on to UNSCOM or now UNMOVIC? Why does the CIA deny that Iraq is an imminent threat? How did the weapons manufacture go on despite being under the most strict surveilance and conditions any nation has ever been subject to? And why wait? Why hold back to trump this report? If they knew about weapons in a definite sense, why not reveal the evidence and proceed to take steps from there? Why wait?

The official word on this is that intelligence sources need to be protected. Which again reeks of something not quite right. I understand some principles of Information Theory, but like Iraq doesn't know it's having the living shit spied out of them in every possible way. It just doesn't sit right with me.