From: Dylan Sunter (dylan.sunter@fisystem.com)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 07:17:15 MDT
He is racing to acquire a nuclear
capability and enhance his other weapons of
mass destruction.
I have seen no evidence other than politicians and reporters saying so. I
may be wrong, but in international diplomacy, tangible evidence for
"wrongdoings" are usually required. But, I guess if its in the Times, it HAS
to be completely 100% absolutely true and nobody should question it.
He has no moral
compunction about their use
Only 1 nation has ever used a nuclear strike. Was it Iraq? No, it was the
good ole' US of A: yup Im sure it was very justified wiping out innocent
civilians. Saddam has other WMD, and whilst he has shown he will use against
against the kurds (in the same way as allies such as Turkey who persecute
Kurds also), there has not yet been any instance where these have been used
against any other enemies.
, to attack his
neighbours
Iran and Kuwait. The west didnt give a damn when he attacked Iran, and in
fact the US and allies armed him at this time. Kuwait was different...too
much oil at stake. How does this show he is an expansionist and will
mindlessly attack his neighbours?
, to blackmail the West or to
strengthen the radical Islamist terrorist
organisations with whom he has worked.
Such as other allies like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc....? How does this make
him different, its a propoganda tactic only, and does not stand up to
scrutiny.
Experts may differ about precisely how close
Saddam is to possessing the most terrifying
threat of all, nuclear weaponry, but the record
does not give cause for comfort.
What would be nice would be the provision of some real facts.... something
other than opinion for this. A list of confirmed occurances of any meetings
which have taken place where nukes were on the agenda for example. Its very
very easy to say "saddam is relentlessly pursuing nukes" and this will make
the front pages, but without any evidence from independant and verifyable
sources, it is like saying "saddam wears womens underwear" without
verifyable evidence.
As Mr Cheney
recalled, oeprior to the Gulf War America(tm)s top
intelligence analysts would tell me that
Saddam Hussein was at least five, or perhaps
even ten, years away from having a nuclear
weapon. After the war we learnt that he had
been much closer than that, perhaps within a
year of acquiring such a weapon.
No responsible Western leader can afford to
discount the consequences of Saddam
possessing deliverable weapons of mass
destruction.
This is almost laughable in its bias, especially when the US gets all pious
about irradiating innocent people.
He is a practised mass murderer
with unassuaged territorial ambitions towards
his neighbours.
This isnt in dispute in the case of Iran and Kuwait. But there have been
many instances of nations claiming other sovereign states or
enclaves/principalities of another state as their own and it leading to
military operations...in all cases, the aggressor nations leader has not
been villified in the same manner as in Iraq.
He is an unstable tyrant who
aspires to hegemony over the Arab world by
providing its most radical elements with
political leadership and military support.
Please define in terms which have some semblance of political understanding,
rather than tabloid-speak.
Terrorists who menace Israel and have
operated throughout the West have been
trained, financed and armed by him.
Columbia, Somalia, Nicaragua....Oh yeah, the west, particularly the US has
NEVER been involved in state sponsored terrorism. Let him who is without
sin and all that.....
Defectors have warned us of the camps in
which his confederates practise the hijacking
of airliners.
The $25,000 he gives to suicide
bombers in the Palestinian Authority helps to
ensure that terror(tm)s cutting edge remains
bloodied.
Possessed of of suitable weaponry, Saddam
would create geopolitical chaos of a kind more
dangerous than any we have known since the
fall of communism.
He would be able to
destabilise the entire Middle East to the
detriment of all its peoples and he could then
place his boot on the world(tm)s windpipe by
threatening its oil supplies.
Possessed of suitable weaponry, Saddam
would threaten Western democracies as no
murderous tyrant has done since the Thirties.
He could directly threaten the security of the
Jewish people as no one has done since Hitler.
Israeli security (not necessarily Jews in general) is threatened by their
governments insistance of aggressive and illegal occupation of palestinian
lands. The Israelis have never had a problem when it comes to lashing out at
those who they perceive as being threatening.
And he could hold Europe and the US, our
interests, people and values, to ransom.
How exactly? This is Sun Reader mentality.
For he
would be able to equip terrorists with the
means to unleash attacks more devastating than
those visited on America on September 11.
The danger posed by Saddam existed long
before last September. Indeed, I have argued
on this page for his removal for many years
now. But the World Trade Centre attack
brought home, in the most horrific fashion, the
requirement for action to protect the West from
threats it had neglected or had believed could
be managed by diplomacy and containment.
Saddam(tm)s record, pathology and allies require
a response from the West wholly different
from the doctrine of deterrence that governed
Western security thinking for 50 years. They
also force us to rethink our inherited, and
proper, respect for the principle of non-
intervention in the affairs of sovereign states.
As Henry Kissinger pointed out earlier this
month, oepolicies that deterred the Soviet Union
are unlikely to work against Iraq(tm)s capacity to
co-operate with terrorist groups. Suicide
bombing has shown that the calculations of
jihad fighters are not those of the Cold War
principals.
What has this to do particularly with the "iraqi threat"? Surely this is a
seperate issue?
The international order has hitherto depended
on the principle that national borders are
sacrosanct and, however unattractive a tyrant,
military action to remove a regime can be
justified only by its breaching another state(tm)s
sovereignty. But, as Dr Kissinger has noted,
Iraq(tm)s imminent acquisition of weapons of
mass destruction challenges that doctrine at
root. For not only is Saddam(tm)s programme to
acquire such weapons in breach of treaty
accords and the international order, it also
gives him the potential to threaten global
security at will, possessed of the means of
inflicting irretrievable damage on other states
and peoples.
However, this is Dr Kissingers view, and it appears NOT to be shared by the
majority of allies in Europe and the UN.
Saddam, and his terrorist allies,
would be horrifically empowered. Our capacity
to protect our citizens, and interests, would be
grotesquely weakened.
explain? The capacity would be the same, and would more than likely adapt.
Granted, I dont want to see Saddam with nukes, but Im more scared of those
nations which currently have them.
The scale, and imminence, of the threat we
face requires action of a kind it has become
hard to contemplate. We have no alternative
but to launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq to
prevent Saddam completing his drive to
acquire weapons of mass destruction.
The UN appears to disagree with this analysis.
Massive
military force must be deployed to remove
Saddam(tm)s regime. Such an action will
inevitably lead to significant casualties, both
Western and Iraqi.
Correct - many people will die, and many civilians will be killed and
injured needlessly. But thats ok, Iraqi civilians are simply collatoral
damage arent they? But Will the US have the stomach for a war of attrition
to remove one man, even though the effects risk destabilising the entire
region again?
No reasonable, or moral,
human being can regard such a course with
equanimity.
Is that right? Sounds like a trick to remind us "what to think!"
But reason, and morality, tell us
that there is no alternative.
Again, not according to the UN, and they are slightly better placed to make
judgements than some right-wing journalist.
Because the costs inherent in such a course are
great, and because it would mark a departure
from the paths with which diplomatic elites are
comfortable, powerful voices argue for other
strategies.
There is no doubting their sincerity,
or seniority. But then those who practised
appeasement in the 1930s and detente in the
1970s were honourable men.
This is not the 1930's nor is Saddam hussein hitler, and anyone who can draw
a parallel clearly knows fuck all about either of them
It was never their
intention to give tyrannies time and space to
extend the reach of their oppression. Although
that was the inevitable consequence of their
inaction.
yes, iraq is in a great position to threaten the US, both economically and
militarily. Get real...this is bellicose preaching from a man without the
foresight to be self critical.
So, today, those who argue that we should wait
until it can be proven that Saddam actually
possesses a nuclear capability are wrong.
Opinion, not a statement of fact, but made out to be such.
By
then the costs of action would be hugely
greater. And those who argue, like Jack Straw,
that we should rely upon UN weapons
inspectors to neutralise the threat are wrong.
Oh really? Jack Straw, who is much closer to the real information which we
mere plebs cannot fully comprehend, and who is a statesman with a long
history and knowledge of world affairs is wrong because some journalist says
so without providing a single shread of evidence. Yes, that makes complete
sense.
Saddam is a past master at frustrating the
efforts of the best of them.
As Mr Cheney again pointed out on Monday,
oeduring the spring of 1995 inspectors were on
the verge of declaring that Saddam(tm)s
programmes to develop chemical weapons and
longer-range ballistic missiles had been fully
accounted for and shut down. Then Saddam(tm)s
son-in-law defected. Within days the inspectors
discovered that Saddam had kept them in the
dark about the extent of his programme to
produce VX, one of the deadliest chemicals
known to man, and far from having shut down
Iraq(tm)s prohibited missile programmes they
found that Saddam had continued to test such
missiles.
On testimony...people will say anything to get where they want to be....All
this smacks of confessions from 1984.
A return of inspectors would provide
no assurance whatever of Saddam(tm)s
compliance with UN resolutions. On the
contrary, it would provide false comfort that
Saddam was somehow back in his box.
The faith placed in the UN, in inspectors, in
containment, in all the tools of the old
diplomacy, reflects the world-view of men
such as James Baker and Brent Scowcroft who
see foreign policy as an exercise in managing,
rather than confronting, dangers. But the age
upon which we have entered requires, like the
1930s and 1980s, a relinquishing of false
comforts and a clear-eyed confrontation with
evil.
And much more intelligent men with more understanding than the current
president, who have had experience of sending troops into battle against him
before.
It also requires a recognition that the
traditional diplomacy which placed stability
above morality only succeeded in
compromising both. The realpolitik which led
Republicans, and Tories, in the past to
acquiesce in the propping up of regimes in
Baghdad, and Riyadh, has not bought us
security. It has allowed evil to incubate. And
we have been forced to pay, in the innocent
blood shed on September 11, for that folly.
Now, however, America is determined to
ensure that danger is defeated by liberating
those whom its past policies have betrayed. It
is an irony, and one perhaps not welcome
among the old Left or the old Right, that
morality has been restored to international
affairs by a conservative American President.
Just as it was in the 1940s by a Conservative
British Prime Minister. While Europe stands
irresolute and divided, while America(tm)s old
managerialists cavil, while the Left temporises
in the face of tyranny, the White House
recognises that Western democracy(tm)s future
depends on democracy taking root in Iraq.
Cynics might call it cowboy diplomacy, but
putting its faith in freedom is how the West has
always won.
I find this deeply disturbing. Cowboy diplomacy is perhaps not far off the
mark, but then, cowboys tended to find themselves dead if they went looking
for trouble. The rhetoric in this piece is top quality tabloid material, but
hardly stands up to scrutiny as anything other than churned out political
propaganda aimed at getting the domestic audience on side.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:55 MDT