tres, On 1, 2, and 3, we were able to determine who did it. We still do not have hard evidence about a) who, b) when, and c) how Saddam is going to attack the US. As for 'threats' there are many more than just Saddam. Do we preemptively strike at all of them, because they are a threat? Not good policy - ethically or politically. c.i.
Trespassers Will: somebody was telling us but we weren't interested:
Quote:"We predicted it," former Senator Gary Hart said the last time I spoke to him, on Sept. 12, 2001. "We said Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers -- that's a quote from the fall of 1999." The quote comes from the Phase One Report of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century, which was co-chaired by Hart and former Sen. Warren Rudman, R-NH,. But, before 9/11, no one seemed to much care about their conclusions.
cicerone imposter wrote:tres, On 1, 2, and 3, we were able to determine who did it. We still do not have hard evidence about a) who, b) when, and c) how Saddam is going to attack the US. As for 'threats' there are many more than just Saddam. Do we preemptively strike at all of them, because they are a threat? Not good policy - ethically or politically. c.i.
CI - Sorry if I wasn't clear. I am not advocating striking at Saddam. My comments were simply (and I though, clearly) constructed to question the legitimacy of claiming that doing so would jeopardize more civilian lives than would not doing so, or that leaving Saddam in power served the broader goal of promoting "peace".
Had all the world laid down their arms before Hitler's armies, the entire world would have been at peace.
Tresspassers Will,
So by your logic everyone should preemptively attack everyone because the future might contain violence?
Dreamweaver MX wrote:Tresspassers Will,
So by your logic everyone should preemptively attack everyone because the future might contain violence?
I don't believe Tresspassers said or even implied that ... I found his point rather to the contrary.
Oh, and welcome to A2K ... let us know if you'd like help to figure out the bells and whistles. Enjoy!
timber
Quite right, he simply implied that the United States should act in such a rash manner. If anyone else acted with that criteria they'd be villians of course. I may take up your offer when I get around to the bells and whistles so thanks in advance.
tres, We are all aware of the "fears" of what Saddam is capable of. We also know two things: 1) he is treating other Iraqi's in inhuman ways, and 2) he has the 'potential' to do great harm to many. I'm sure it's not necessary to repeat why reasons 1 and 2 still does not justify a preemptive attack on Iraq. He is being "contained" by the international community. He losses nothing by remaining contained. But more importantly, the world losses nothing. If he attacks, the consequences will be swift. c.i.
It used to be a given in this country that you couldn't arrest someone for what you were pretty damn sure he might do one of these days. This piece of the social contract -- predicated on the concept that a some physical risk was better than the risk that our government become authoritarian -- seems to be under serious attack both at the level of local law enforcement and of America's membership in the world community. Rah rah preemptive strike. For starters, look at the slurry thinking about Iraq -- "maybe they had some tenuous connection with 9/11 but we don't know that" has transmogrified into "we'd better get 'em before they do it again." The bottom line is that the worst damage being done to this country right now is the damage we are doing to ourselves. And it looks like we plan to spread that mess overseas...
9/11 aside, Al Queda/Iraq mutual admiration is unlikely enough as to hinder pragmatic cooperation, and as such appears to be a classic "Red Herring".
Among other "Red Herrings" to my perception is that "The Inspectors" are charged with discovering anything, that the US/UN is required to prove anything, in that it is incumbent upon Iraq to unconditionally cooperate in the matter of the verification of his disarmamment and that there might be benefit in granting further time to someone who has been "Running out of time" for over a decade. Demonstrably, the only thing Saddam does with more time is to continue to be very "Saddam-ish" and otherwise unpleasant.
No "Smoking Gun" is required. The Inspectors' function is to verify Iraqi Disarmamment, not to perform it. Iraq has not provided full and open cooperation in the matter, and smoking or not, is unable or unwilling to produce the gun is is known to have had, despite specific demand he do so. Iraq has been, is, and appears committed to remaining in clear and continued Material Breach of UNR 1441 and previous related resolutions.
Some few weeks remain for Iraq to demonstrate compliance ... which would be iconvenient for The US Admisitration, but could yet be turned to advantage. Saddam is not "Contained" by World Opinion, he is being held at gunpoint by a clear and present military force of overwhelming nature. Saddam is counting delaying onset of hostililities a few more weeks at most, by which time local climatalogical conditions will heavilly favor a tenacious Defense-in-Depth against a technologically superior force. He is quite aware of the difficulties involved in maintaining a coalition over extended time. Saddam certainly figures if he can buy a few weeks, he will gain at least the comming Summer, Autum, and Early Winter. Saddam will gain great propaganda value from such delay, "The Arab Street" would view Saddam's continuing in power in defiance of the US and UN to be a victory by Saddam over the two instutions. Saddam would be emboldened, and Radical Militant Islamist Fundamentalists will be much encouraged.
Failure to act appropriately in this matter invalidates the premise of The United Nations, and renders the institution irrelevant. "Severe Consequences" are meaningless unless imposed.
timber
timber, I must disagree. The Arabs/Muslims look at this crisis in a different light. They are angry that the US concentrates its efforts only against Saddam, and not against Israel. They see the superpower as a bully, not a peacemaker, ready to attack a small country with archaic military weapons, and soldiers not prepared to battle the latest high tech weapons of the US. We have waited twelve years. What's the sudden rush? Saddam has not attacked anybody, the inspectors have not found anything, and Saddam claims they have no WMD's. Why not prove him wrong, before we use our "defensive" military might? c.i.
timber
I am compelled to agree with your last paragraph. But only with the caveat of how we got there.
The whole premise is trying to prove a negative, timber.
"We know you've got them (because we sold them to you!); you must give them up!"
"But we don't have any!"
"Prove it!"
-------------------------------
"OK, we'll come in there and find them for you!'
-------------------------------
"Did you find anything?"
"No....but that doesn't mean you don't have them!"
-------------------------------
I mean, isn't this disingenuous, this premise? Everybody knows President War McHardon isn't going to let anything stop him now....but this logic is as twisted as that pretzel he choked on.
blatham, I ain't at all happy with how we got here either, but here we are.
timber
the rational conclusion is that there are NO black and white answers to this dillema
PDiddie, I think where we disagree is in that I perceive that Iraq consistently has failed to cooperate in, and continues to impede, verification of her mandated disarmamment. I am particularly disturbed by her failure to account for known proscribed items. Iraq prodduces neither the items nor documentation of their diposal or conversion. The hell with WMD he MAY have, I want to know what hell he did with the stuff we know, and he agrees, he had! "Bad Book Keeping" just doen't cut it for me. First, his is a bureacracy-laden military dictatorship, which as a species are critters punctilious about records, orders, and authorizations. Essentially, all things not performed under direct chain-of-command order, with appropriate paper trail are pretty much forbidden in such societies as a rule. Part of the many-year-old disarmamment agreements to which Iraq is obligated is provision for stringent recorskeeping and accountability for know proscribed items. The "Smoking Gun" is in Saddam's pocket. That it hasn't been fired is not enough. He must surrender the gun, or suffer having that gun taken from him.
timber
(police line - do not cross - police line - do not cross)
I find these two statements to be incompatible, at least using my definition of the words you chose:
cicerone imposter wrote:We also know ... he is treating other Iraqi's in inhuman ways, and ... has the 'potential' to do great harm to many.
cicerone imposter wrote:... the world losses nothing {by simply "containing" Saddam}
MAD is around the corner. c.i.
How results play out in the days following Powell's presentation remains to be seen. The mythical "Europe United Against War" really consists only of France and Germany, with Greece tagging along. Luxemborg had more or less joined The Allied Camp Feb. 4, when she petitioned NATO to move assets to Iraq's Northern border. The NATO split is now 16-3, and one of the three, France, is quietly moving assets into the Gulf Region ... too late, really, to be included in Operational Planning (handy, that, from The French Point of View ... they'll be there, but they won't "Have a real job"), but on-time enough to secure herself a slice of the pie when it is divided. Russia too has become less strident in her objections, and Schroeder faces the spectre of a looming domestic crisis.
Of the 15 current EU members and the 10 nations to join in 2004, 17 are essentially tied to America's Apron Strings at this point, disregarding any potential effect from Powell's speech, with only six staunch holdouts, two of which, France and Russia, appear to be looking for a face-saving way to line up on the obvious winning side in order to salvage what they may of their current investments in Iraq. By the planned February 14th UN Security Council meeting, opposition to the American Initiative likely will be less cohesive and less significant than it is today. Drs. Blix and al Bharadei have voiced impatience. Khofi Annan has said that is "Time for Iraq to comply". The next week will see major shifts of policy and alignment, some of which will be attributed to Powell, and none of which will be of aid to the anti-war camp. The war drums are sounding, and the parade is growing longer.
Germany is likely to find herself very much alone, and Schroeder's continued place on The World Stage is subject to doubt.
timber
With all due respect, timber, that's all just mental masturbation without an orgasm.
The only question left is, "When does the invasion begin?"
Before or after Valentine's Day?
