blatham, DebkaFile/DebkaNet is a right wing Israeli production, given to hyperbole, conjecture, and sensationalism directed toward bolstering the Hard Line Israeli position. Still, though their motives may be suspect, the frequently break valid stories before other sources. Never the less, they are the source of The Defecting Bodyguard stories which never panned out, and they were big on the three "Mystery Ships", the existence of which seems to be unconfirmed by more credible intelligence sources. I watch Debka, but I generally try to gather corroboration for any claim or expose they put forward. If another outlet or two pick up and expand on the item, there is probably substance to it, If the story merely fades away, it was likely just hysteria and eagerness on Debka's part "To be first with the news" that is at work. Their analyses are all rather slanted, and they are quick to sieze on anything which appears to support their parochial agenda. They are, in my mind, a source, but not necessarily a definitive, objective, unbiased source.
timber
Tartarin, I did grab just that one reference for my rebuttal, but I also fail to see any Familial Imperative at work. That simply isn't the way global politics work, and to assume that such motive plays any part is disingenuous as well. It is convenient, of course, and provides for great sloganeering, but it is just not a motivating factor, IMHO. I could be wrong.
I expect Iraq's resources will be managed In Trust for the Iraqi People, and that much will be made of that, in interest of legitimizing the more salient US long-term presence in the area. Politicians and diplomats are devious, yes, but cunningly so, and not particularly given to transparency and simple motivations. We don't really care much who pumps, transports, buys, or sells Iraqi Oil. We do care to have an influence on the politics of the region. Getting rid of Saddam, his WMD threat, his militant posturing, and establishing a US influence in the area are the reasons we're undertaking this endeavor, as I see it.
timber
Another example of Blix's non neutrality as he continues to gobble up Saddams trail of crumbs with overstated gratitude.
Today's headlines:
"Iraq cooperating" They have "suddenly found" and turned over to Blix and his crew "two bombs" one possibly filled with a biological agent.
If this "suddenly found" evidence wasn't so frightening it would be laughable.
timber
Thanks, re debka
Re oil...that the US may not be specifically desirous of Iraq's oil resource, the US presence and interest in the entire middle east relates to that resource. 'Leverage', to use your word, has been sought by various national agents in this area for what other reason?
Blatham, Set
Thanks for various links
"National Interest" is Extreme Right Wing political code word for OIL!
Steve,
To remove the troops would entail a similar cost to putting them there in the first place. That amounts to doubling the cost, with no return on the investment. Once the credible threat of military force was removed, Saddam would claim victory and resume the same sort of tactics he used for 12 years.
At the height of UN inspection Saddam continued to produce chemical/biological and nerve agents without detection. During that same period Saddam's efforts to obtain components needed to produce nuclear weapons remained secret. After defectors blew the whistle on Saddam's secret weapons programs, he threw the inspectors our of country. He has had four years to rebuild all that was destroyed, and to refine his means of concealment. Now a small contingent of UN Inspectors are back in country, but Saddam continues to obstruct and conceal his prohibited arsenal. Periodically, usually after being caught in another lie, Saddam grudgingly tosses a few crumbs of hope on the table that things will change. This is only been made possible by the presence of our troops and the threat of imminent hostilities. Once the troops are gone, what will happen?
Saddam will lead the Inspectors a merry chase for perhaps a month, and then they will be kicked out of country again. Saddam will continue to build and stockpile weapons whose sole purpose is the murder of innocent civilians. At least some of those within Iraq who have secretly supported the overthrow of Saddam will be discovered, tortured and murdered. In a year the conditions will be worse than they are now, and the difficulties of reassembling the forces will be greater. It might not be politically possible for Bush to recommit the necessary forces to the area during an election year after failing to follow through now. Without resolving the problems now, the uncertainties would just drag out over a longer period. The dollar costs themselves would almost certainly be greater in a year than they are now. Even if the decision was made to reassemble the military on Iraq's borders, what would prevent a replay of the current situation?
The following effects can be expected, though assessing the probabilities are more difficult. Kuwait will be left defenseless, and open to Iraqi retaliation -- most probably by terrorist acts not easily traced back to Saddam's door. palestinian terrorism will increase in tempo and intensity. Iran will claim that it needs a nuclear weapon to defend itself against Iraq, and will increase its efforts to build it's own bomb. Kim Jong-Il will note that the UN has failed to act against Saddam even though victory was certain, and he will be encouraged to further threaten all-out nuclear war if anyone objects to his greatly enlarging his nuclear arsenal. Countries who rely on the American military to shield them from aggression will have less confidence that they will be protected, and hence will be more easily intimidated by threats.
Cicero,
Of course, all weapons in our arsenal are always available and will be used in appropriate circumstances. The threat of retaliation using weapons similar to, or of greater destructiveness/lethality, is a deterrent to their first use by an enemy. If you rule out retaliation in kind before hand, opponents like Saddam and Kim will have no reluctance at all in using chemicals/biologicals/nerve agents, or nuclear bombs. Possession of such weapons in our inventory is the best means of preventing their use on our troops, or citizens.
Would we really use a nuclear device on Pyong-Yang if Kim exploded a 10K device over the Marine base in Okinawa? I suspect that many Americans would DEMAND retaliation in kind. If Saddam delivers scuds carrying biological warheads on Israel causing large casualties, do you think restraining the Israelis from major retalialtion will be easy? We must to the extent possible deter Saddam from using his arsenal of terror weapons.
What are we waiting for, I'm tired of all the waiting - Let's get to some good ole killing!
Ash
I wasn't entirely serious
of course it is politically impossible to withdraw troops - and militarily impossible to leave them on station. So its pretty clear "Destination Baghdad" and soon.
Timber -- I know we liberals have often been accused of being "naive," but I think we're the ones who are best able to see the forest for the trees here. It's genuinely naive to subtract personal interests from Bush's motivations. Bush is positively hemmed in -- closed off from the world -- by personal interests and ambitions: his is arguably a prime example of a defensive, addictive personality. And Bush family interests aren't limited to oil. If you look at the relationships within the Bush family (from ol' Pres on down -- and we really should do that), you can't help but notice the interconnections, the many blotches of corruption and shady dealings, in and around banking, oil service, defense. Prescott Bush left his country a legacy of weak sons dependent on politics and profiteering, and maintained in the political scene by banking, oil service, and defense interests. Now those sons have given us a fresh crop who are breeding great-grandchildren for the business of politics. However you want to see this, it's indisputable that the Bush family and coterie have long, strong ties with the mid-east -- way beyond any relationships formed in a government job. Forget Iraqi oil, for the moment. Look at the whole picture. Include banking and defense contracts in your calculations. Necessary war? Why, it sure is!!
Setanta -- Thanks for the wonderful piece of history above. I've kind of fallen in love with occitan lately and particularly the Languedoc Roussillon area, a piece of a big treasure trove for linquistic anthropologists manques!
BillW -- You just keep hitting that bull's eye over and over. Much appreciated!
Asherman -- "...with no return on the investment.." This is obviously true, since we have no investment in keeping people alive. As Bill says, Let's start the kiling.
Killing, yes that's the ticket, it sells newspapers, takes minds off the economy and diverts attention from bad, immoral politics! We also will need more munitions which puts more money in family coffers - yes, let there be killing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And then we can start calling those that are against the war unpatriotic (again)! Out loud, in a direct manner - that is!
Tartarin wrote: "... no return on the investment.." This is obviously true, since we have no investment in keeping people alive
Forgive me, Tartarin, but I must comment that I see that as nothing other than inflamatory rhetoric, uncontributory to substantive debate or exchange of idea. Whether from The Left or The Right, sloganeering is not argument. It is facile, cheap, and demeaning to all concerned, and is to be condemmed most strongly. Not only is it not based in thought, reflection, and consideration, IMHO, it serves to limit rational examination of an issue, emotionalizing it instead, It ain't good. It is nothing more than manipulative, agenda-driven propaganda, from whichever wing it flows.
timber
In yesterdays WH Press Briefing:
Quote:Q Ari, in Mexico, the President will continue to call President Fox to pressure him to change his mind against -- and to vote in the Security Council? What Mexico can get from the United States if it votes yes for the resolution that was presented by this country?
MR. FLEISCHER: First of all, this entire matter will be dealt with in a matter of diplomacy and logic and expressions of our position. And nations then will be in a position as sovereigns to evaluate that information. This is why the Security Council is set up with 10 members who rotate on to the Council. This is a moment for 10 nations that would not typically be on the Security Council to have their moment, as part of the international community's regimes to enforce peace and to fight proliferation.
Q But Mexico can get something from the United States, from the President --
MR. FLEISCHER: This is a time -- no, the President is not offering quid pro quos. This is a time for nations to do what they estimate is the right thing to do to promote the peace.
Q Ari, just to follow up on Mexico. Is it true that the administration is willing to give Mexico some sort of immigration agreements like amnesty or guest worker program, to assure the Mexican vote, as the French press is pointing out today and is quoting, actually, two different diplomats from the State Department?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's exactly as I indicated, that we have, on this issue, a matter of diplomacy and a matter of the merits. We ask each nation on the Security Council to weigh the merits and make a decision about war and peace. And if anybody thinks that there are nations like Mexico, whose vote could be bought on the basis of a trade issue or something else like that, I think you're giving -- doing grave injustice to the independence and the judgment of the leaders of other nations.
Q -- the French press is quoting actually two different diplomats from the United States State Department that -- they're highlighting that the United States is giving some sort of agreements or benefits to Colombia -- and other non-members of the Security Council --
MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't seen the story. And you already have the answer, about what this will be decided on. But think about the implications of what you're saying. You're saying that the leaders of other nations are buyable. And that is not an acceptable proposition. (Laughter.)
Thank you.
Laughter continued the entire time Ari was leaving the room.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=3&cid=578&u=/nm/20030226/ts_nm/iraq_un_dcQuote:Top Stories - Reuters
U.N.'s Blix Says Iraq Short of Full Cooperation
46 minutes ago
By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said on Wednesday Iraq still had not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite a recent handover of documents that his experts welcomed.
... Diplomats said, however, they did not expect Blix's written report to contain such precise language and thereby give ammunition to the United States and Britain, who are moving toward war, and their opponents, France, Germany and Russia, who want inspections to continue.
"It will be glass half-empty, glass half-full," said one envoy, who had seen a draft of the report, speaking on condition of anonymity ... "
It would appear Dr. Blix continues to attempt to ensure his own long-term employment in his current position. I am perplexed that on the one hand, he admits he understands the issue is one of verification of compliance, not of discovery, and that compliance has not been met, and then goes on to promote further discovery.
timber
I wonder if Fleischer reddened in anger, or would that more likely be embarrassment?
Fascinating discussion. Still perplexed as to the continued use of the concept of containment, boxing in, etc. I am assuming that this issue was already dealt with earlier in this forum and that most of you may not feel the need to revisit it. But as long as this is still held out as an option, an obtainable goal, it will influence peoples' thinking and position.
Perhaps I should start a separate discussion on it? Need input.
And Tartarin, I'll take that bumper sticker.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/877258.asp
Gee, that sounds familiar
I'm sure these folks are sincere. I'm also sure these folks are themselves, by their volunteering, guilty of the warcrime of employing or condoning the use of human shields. Those who bomb abortion clinics are sincere too.
Another update ... breaking broadcast news: Blair appears well on his way to Parlimentary Approval of his Iraq position.
timber
Well, more than the expected 100 MPs voted against Blair.
However, this just shows another 'minor' "opinion" - although at US' strongest ally and Blair's own party.
Timber
Actually the live tv (see Steve's link above) gave some other results.
