Using nuclear weapons in Iraq

[iain]

[j_b]

darn natives! if only they did everything that is good for our national interest .... we would not have to kill them.

 

is this the intellectual honesty some people were talking about?

[sexual_chocolate]

Okay, what are our options? We can let the UN do things their way. (Which, hopefully, has no similarity whatsoever to France's suggestion) We can ignore the situation and hope it goes away. We can blast Saddam to the moon. We can continue to threaten force on Saddam until he a) gives in b)starts shooting or c)takes up climbing, reaches inner peace and realizes the error of his ways. You pick.

 

What is this a) option? Giving in? I kinda thought he'd already done that.... Can you tell me which particular article in Resolution 14(??) he's in violation of?

 

And yeah, I'm all in favor of allowing more time for inspections. I think it gives time for the debate to flesh out a bit, gaining a bit more context than at present. Right now the argument is being fought on the US' terms, and it's quite not healthy.

 

I love Ari Fleisher's line: "We'll see if NATO makes itself irrelevant." As if relevancy is only awarded to those who agree with the US! What a vulgar bastard! Bush is using this same form of argument with the UN, and it really stinks, and I wish more people here would see through it. I think many others do, especially overseas.

 

I would imagine that a lot of anti-US sentiment is being fomented right now, and I can only imagine what form it might take in the future: Larger and larger alliances between nations, in opposition to US hegemony? Harder and harder for the US to win cooperation on trade and other issues in the future? More terrorist attacks are a given....Certainly unsafer for all of us to travel anywhere. Thanks, Bush. We don't have an armed cavalcade to march us around.

 

And now the administration is trying to use the recently released bin Laden tape as evidence of Qaeda/Iraqi ties? Come on, people! Osama calls Hussein a socialist infidel! Not a sign of an alliance, for god's sake!

[j_b]

And now the administration is trying to use the recently released bin Laden tape as evidence of Qaeda/Iraqi ties? Come on, people!

 

easy SC. You know the way it goes: Powell said it, it has to be true!

 

the (not) funny part is one would think they are overdoing it, but there is apparently little that limits the credulity of the public. I must say throwing in a little xenophobia goes a long way ....

[mattp]

And now the administration is trying to use the recently released bin Laden tape as evidence of Qaeda/Iraqi ties? Come on, people! Osama calls Hussein a socialist infidel! Not a sign of an alliance, for god's sake!

 

Yes, I was just ranting about this one not thirty seconds ago! It is truly amazing how they can spin this stuff and, apparently, the American people will eat it up. I doubt the subtlety of the message that he doesn't like Iraq but he thinks America is the real great Satan is lost on people from anywhere else on the entire planet!

[JayB]

Maybe you are privy to information that I haven't seen. The only reports I have seen indicate an active Al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, including the rebuilding of their military training camps.

 

You may be right about this, but let's see your sources. I certainly don't know everything about the current situation in Afghanistan, but I have not read anything about Al-Queda regrouping on a large scale and re-establishing anything like the presence that they had prior to the demolition of the Taliban regime. There may well be quite a few Al Queda members hunkering down in isolated villages throughout Afghanistan, but I can't imagine them intentionally concentrating in camps that can be taken out with a single precision guided bomb. It would be impossible, not to mention silly, to embark on a mission to detain or kill every member of Al Queada holed up in Afghanistan. The mission was to dismantle the regime which allowed them to operate with impunity in the country, destroy their camps, and limit their operational efficiency within the country - all of which we accomplished. While there may be a few of them left, we have a base of operations to strike them from, vastly improved local intelligence, and a regime in place which, in addition to administering the country in a manner more consistent with internationally recognized human rights standards, will likely prove much more cooperative than the Taliban.

 

 

Again, based on what I have heard, most of the approximately 8,000 US troops are concentrated around Kabul, protecting the presidency of Karzai, while the rest of the country has fallen under the "aegis" of warlords. Women still wear burkas, because they fear being raped. Extortion and bribery are common, with disappearances the norm. The aid promised by the western allied forces has not materialized.

 

How much aid was promised? How far short of the total are they? You realize of course that dispensing aid requires an infrastructure. You've got to hold the money somewhere (banks), you've got to have people on hand who can dispense the money in a manner that's consistent with the intent of the donors (government and the associated institutions), you have to dispense the aid (roads), etc. etc. etc. All of these things take time.

 

What were you expecting? Instant Utopia? Please. You could have said the same things about Europe in 1946. It'll take at least a decade, if not longer for life in Afghanistan to return to anything that even bears a faint resemblance to normalcy. That's not a "failure," it's called reality, and the conditions there roughly one year into rebuilding after 30 years of unceasing warfare can hardly serve as grounds for calling our efforts there pointless. Anyhow, we can help, but the burden of restoring Afghanistan to such a state will ultimately fall on the Afghanis.

 

Another point worth making:

Many voices opposing the US/Iraq alliance aren't necessarily objecting to the "hypocrisy". I believe one huge objection is Bush's continued portrayal of Hussein's "gassing his own people" as an uncondoned act, immoral beyond belief, when in fact the US knew very well it was happening, WHEN it was happening, and even moved to block UN censure at that time. The US could very likely have ended the gassings with a strategic intervention, but obviously did not wish to do so, since that would not have been in accord with our national interests. If this is not objectionable to you on many fronts, I find empathy welling up for you. You seem to excuse much in the name of "national interest".

 

Actually, I agree that our failure to condemn the attacks on the Kurds and/or take any meaningful action to stay Saddam's hand once they were underway is one of the more shameful episodes in our history. Right up there with inciting the Shiites in the Marshes and the Kurds to rebel by suggesting that we'd asssist them, then essentially abandoning them to certain death at the hands of the Republican guard.

 

In the case of the gassing, Saddam calculated that the western powers (this includes just about all of Western Europe) would let him get away with murder rather than see the Iranians triumph. Unfortunately, he was right. I suspect that had we suggested to Saddam that his continued use of such weapons would mean the end of our military assistance to him he would have paid attention. While it may be necessary to ally ourselves with unsavory regimes in order to counter greater threats, there are limits.

 

I have never argued that the US, or our policies, have been perfect, but perfection is a standard that no nation in history has ever met, or will ever meet. Dig deeply enough into the affairs of any nation that has ever had power to abuse and you will find abuses. I will maintain that on balance our interventions throughout the world have made it a better place than it would have been otherwise. You may disagree, and that is your perogative.

 

Link to comprehensive account of the Anfal campaign against the Kurds.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/.