So how, MM, do you explain Bolton's view re aggressive NK's neighbours?
Just politics? Not true?
Walter Hinteler wrote:So how, MM, do you explain Bolton's view re aggressive NK's neighbours?
Just politics? Not true?
I dont disagree with him,he has access to information I dont have.
So to disagree with him would be foolish on my part.
BUT,how many countries has NK invaded since the end of the Korean war?
How many people have they killed with WMD?
They can be as militaristic and aggressive as they want,but as long as they dont invade another country or use WMD (both of which Saddam did),they are not a threat to the region.
Thanks. I only asked because
you wrote:NK is an entirely different situation.
They are contained on all sides,they have not shown a RECENT history of aggressive actions towards their neighbors, ....
Brandon9000 wrote:
Everything you've just said is wrong.
I'd ask you to back that up with proof but I don't think I could bear to read the three page post that would come with it.
Quote:There is not a certainty that an attack on the US would result in the destruction of the perpetrator.
No? Do you not think that the US would nuke every country even suspected of being involved if we were attacked by a nuclear weapon?
Quote:They could smuggled the components of nukes or bioweapons into the US, re-assemble them here, kill a million people here, and then deny responsibility.
And with Saddam gone and the middle east destabilized, now they can't?
Quote:Saddam Hussein might have used the mere knowledge of the weapons to force his neighbors to accede to his demands over and over. He could have re-invaded Kuwait and dared anyone to stop him.
You know what else he might have done? He could have stood on the top of his palace walls, turned around and dropped his pants revealing a stunning likeness of George Bush's face with lips puckered, thus forcing our president to perpetually kiss his ass.
There are a lot of things he "might" have done. Did you take into account the likelihood of any of these things?
Quote:We don't invade North Korea because it's too late, they already have nukes.
Which of course explains why so many countries would like to get their hands on nuclear weapons.
Quote:It might have been just a few years, and if he had still had such programs, there might have been a finite time window of opportunity before it was too late, and the weapons made him virtually invulnerable to attack.
Are any of those "might"s worth lives? If so, how many of them? What if Saddam did become invulnerable to attack. Would the world fall apart? Is attacking our only means of accomplishing anything?
Quote:Yes, if some other terrible dictator has been developing nukes and bioweapons, and may well still be doing so, and if more than a decade of negotiations, sanctions, and demands have failed to produce much evidence he has stopped, we should probably invade.
"Should" "Probably" So you see some mitigating reasons. What might those reasons be? What are some reasons that you can think of that might persuade you that it isn't a good idea?
Quote:But, the fundamental thing you seem not to grasp is that one single one of these weapons could kill hundreds of thousands of people in one blow, several of them could kill a million people or more, and even a moderate chance that a horrible dictator is still proceeding with development is a very, very serious threat.
I grasp that, quite well actually. What you seem not to grasp is that that ship has sailed. The cat is out of the bag, and it is and will continue to be impossible to prevent any other nation from possessing that technology indefinitely.
mysteryman wrote:Freeduck,
Several of us have given you our reasons for supporting the war.
We have given you our reasons for supporting the invasion.
Now you are asking if we considered reasons to not go to war,or if we just accepted the "doomsday scenario".
I cant speak for anyone else,so I will give you my answer to that question.
Did I consider reasons to not go to war?
To be honest,no I didn't.
I was a soldier,and when ordered to fight,I fought.
I do admit that there were probably some good reasons to not go to war,and looking back,I can see that.
There was the possibility that we could destabilize the area,the possibility that we could lose or suffer massive casualties.
But as a soldier,my job was to go where they sent me,and fight who they told me to fight.
I had to rely on the judgement of my superiors,and the knowledge that they had more information then I was privy to and that they had ALL the info needed to justify the decision to invade.
But,looking back,I still think the decision to invade was justified,based on what I was told and what I knew then,and I believe the war is still justified.
I would return to Iraq tomorrow if I was asked to or ordered to.
As for you mentioning North Korea,I believe the situation is different.
NK is an entirely different situation.
They are contained on all sides,they have not shown a RECENT history of aggressive actions towards their neighbors,such as invading other countries,they have not used WMD on their own people or their neighbors.
They are contained and while they are blustering and showing braggadocio towards their neighbors,they have not actually threatened or invaded anyone.
Do I believe there have been mistakes made,yes I do.
Do I support the initial actions and our ongoing effort in Iraq now,yes I do.
I cant speak for anyone else,but I hope I have answered your question,as far as I personally am concerned.
Thank you for that honest answer, MM.
mysteryman wrote:Freeduck said...
Quote:Another is that there was not firm exit strategy
This is a failry new phrase,since the Vietnam war.
The "exit strategy" of every war we have ever fought is the same,defeat the enemy,destroy their ability to resist or to wage war,and go home.
that has ALWAYS been the "exit strategy".
Only recently have there been calls for an "exit strategy" to be in place before a war is fought.
I think it is a new phrase since we stopped declaring war and instead began conducting "operations". Declarations of war can have declarations of peace. "Operations" end when some objective is met. Thus, it makes sense to define that objective before you commit resources and peoples' lives. Nobody wants an endless war. At least I hope not.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Thanks. I only asked because
you wrote:NK is an entirely different situation.
They are contained on all sides,they have not shown a RECENT history of aggressive actions towards their neighbors, ....
And they havent.
By aggressive actions,I meant that they have not invaded another country,they have not used WMD on another country,nor have they attempted to destabilize other countries.
Yes,they have launched missiles,yes they have used bluster and loud talk.
They are like a bully,trying to use loud talk and idle threats to get their way,but pretty powerless to actually do anything.
So,have they been aggressive?
I guess it depends on how you define aggressive.
I guess a lot depends on how you define "recent" and "powerless" as well.
FreeDuck wrote:mysteryman wrote:Freeduck,
Several of us have given you our reasons for supporting the war.
We have given you our reasons for supporting the invasion.
Now you are asking if we considered reasons to not go to war,or if we just accepted the "doomsday scenario".
I cant speak for anyone else,so I will give you my answer to that question.
Did I consider reasons to not go to war?
To be honest,no I didn't.
I was a soldier,and when ordered to fight,I fought.
I do admit that there were probably some good reasons to not go to war,and looking back,I can see that.
There was the possibility that we could destabilize the area,the possibility that we could lose or suffer massive casualties.
But as a soldier,my job was to go where they sent me,and fight who they told me to fight.
I had to rely on the judgement of my superiors,and the knowledge that they had more information then I was privy to and that they had ALL the info needed to justify the decision to invade.
But,looking back,I still think the decision to invade was justified,based on what I was told and what I knew then,and I believe the war is still justified.
I would return to Iraq tomorrow if I was asked to or ordered to.
As for you mentioning North Korea,I believe the situation is different.
NK is an entirely different situation.
They are contained on all sides,they have not shown a RECENT history of aggressive actions towards their neighbors,such as invading other countries,they have not used WMD on their own people or their neighbors.
They are contained and while they are blustering and showing braggadocio towards their neighbors,they have not actually threatened or invaded anyone.
Do I believe there have been mistakes made,yes I do.
Do I support the initial actions and our ongoing effort in Iraq now,yes I do.
I cant speak for anyone else,but I hope I have answered your question,as far as I personally am concerned.
Thank you for that honest answer, MM.
Much better written but the essense of it is what I have been saying. Good way to put it MM.
I wasn't in the military at the time of the invasion but joined a month later. Why you ask? To help in Iraq, to do my part. Do I regret my decision to join? No I don't, in fact I'm waiting for my next deployment now. My wife isn't happy about it, but she still supports what I want to do.
Here is an interesting letter from the right's braintrust to Clinton, urging him to out Saddam. Clinton had the wisdom to ignore this terrible advice. Bush, of course, was only too happy to comply.
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
joefromchicago wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:We don't invade North Korea because it's too late, they already have nukes.
And people wonder why Iran is interested in developing its own nuclear weapons.
So what? It's not our doing that ownership of a stockpile of nukes makes someone all but invulnerable, it's just a fact of life.
Advocate wrote:Here is an interesting letter from the right's braintrust to Clinton, urging him to out Saddam. Clinton had the wisdom to ignore this terrible advice. Bush, of course, was only too happy to comply.
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis **** Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
Because of a lack of action on Clintons part and the UN security counsel we are now where we are today. How much better a place would the ME be if we had left Saddam alone and lifted the sactions? I'm sure the US would be going into Iraq in the next few years anyway.
FreeDuck wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:
Everything you've just said is wrong.
I'd ask you to back that up with proof but I don't think I could bear to read the three page post that would come with it.
Quote:There is not a certainty that an attack on the US would result in the destruction of the perpetrator.
No? Do you not think that the US would nuke every country even suspected of being involved if we were attacked by a nuclear weapon?
Quote:They could smuggled the components of nukes or bioweapons into the US, re-assemble them here, kill a million people here, and then deny responsibility.
And with Saddam gone and the middle east destabilized, now they can't?
Don't change the subject. My statement was intended to show one and only one thing - your claim that using a nuke or biological weapon on the US brings certainty of retaliation is false. As I point out above, this is false because such and attack could be carried out with a in such a way that we wouldn't know for sure who the culprit was.
FreeDuck wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Saddam Hussein might have used the mere knowledge of the weapons to force his neighbors to accede to his demands over and over. He could have re-invaded Kuwait and dared anyone to stop him.
You know what else he might have done? He could have stood on the top of his palace walls, turned around and dropped his pants revealing a stunning likeness of George Bush's face with lips puckered....
True, but so what? First of all, no one would care if he did that, secondly, my scenario would have grave consequences for the world, whereas yours would not. Your statement that anything
might happen doesn't detract from the argument that doomsday weapons in the hands of an evil madman who likes to annex neighbors would be very dangerous.
FreeDuck wrote:There are a lot of things he "might" have done. Did you take into account the likelihood of any of these things?
It's quite possible that if Saddam Hussein had acquired these weapons he might have used them to facilitate the annexations of nighbors he had already tried, and to generally further his evil agenda. When deciding how much danger a possibility holds one has to consider both the probability that it will occur and the severity of the consequences if it occurs. Did you take into acount the severity of the consequences if Saddam Hussein had amassed a stockpile of nuclear and/or biological weapons?
FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:We don't invade North Korea because it's too late, they already have nukes.
Which of course explains why so many countries would like to get their hands on nuclear weapons.
Yes, it does. So what? It's not our fault that (a) doomsday weapons should be kept out of the hands of extraordinarily evil dictators, and that (b) having them confers near invulnerability, it's just the natural dynamics of the equation.
Furthermore, the actual point of the comment was to rebut your suggestion that since we invaded Iraq, then, by the same logic, we should have invaded North Korea.
I disagree with both your premise A and B.
(a) doomsday weapons should be kept out of the hands of extraordinarily evil dictators - at what cost? At what point have we caused more death trying to get rid of weapons - which we're never sure actually exist - than we would have prevented?
(b) having them confers near invulnerability, it's just the natural dynamics of the equation - no, it isn't. It's the perception that they confer invulnerability because we don't dare have someone use them against us which brings about this perception.
Say Iran had nukes. Does that prevent us from attacking them? Nope. It just raises the stakes. It's foolish to say that it confers invulnerability.
Cycloptichorn
FreeDuck wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:It might have been just a few years, and if he had still had such programs, there might have been a finite time window of opportunity before it was too late, and the weapons made him virtually invulnerable to attack.
Are any of those "might"s worth lives? If so, how many of them? What if Saddam did become invulnerable to attack. Would the world fall apart?
We've told you the obvious over and over and over and you still don't get it. One single use of one nuke or bioweapon could kill hundreds of thousands of people or even more. You want nukes going off or plagues springing up in the Middle East, or even here in our cities? The possession of nukes and/or bioweapons could have permitted, Saddam Hussein, a virtual human monster, to dominate the entire Middle East.
FreeDuck wrote:Is attacking our only means of accomplishing anything?
After years of negotiating and imposing economic sanctions on someone who lies and obstructs, without achieving the desired result, and with the reasonable possibility of a grave danger, yes.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I disagree with both your premise A and B.
(a) doomsday weapons should be kept out of the hands of extraordinarily evil dictators - at what cost? At what point have we caused more death trying to get rid of weapons - which we're never sure actually exist - than we would have prevented?
(b) having them confers near invulnerability, it's just the natural dynamics of the equation - no, it isn't. It's the perception that they confer invulnerability because we don't dare have someone use them against us which brings about this perception.
Say Iran had nukes. Does that prevent us from attacking them? Nope. It just raises the stakes. It's foolish to say that it confers invulnerability.
Cycloptichorn
I'm only alleging that one doesn't invade a nuclear power under any but the most extreme circumstances. I had said "near" invulnerability.
FreeDuck wrote:Brandon wrote:But, the fundamental thing you seem not to grasp is that one single one of these weapons could kill hundreds of thousands of people in one blow, several of them could kill a million people or more, and even a moderate chance that a horrible dictator is still proceeding with development is a very, very serious threat.
I grasp that, quite well actually. What you seem not to grasp is that that ship has sailed. The cat is out of the bag, and it is and will continue to be impossible to prevent any other nation from possessing that technology indefinitely.
Then we're all dead, and civilization will fall. When dozens of nations and well financed groups posses nuclear and/or biological weapons, then they will be used. I prefer to try and stop this outcome.
Brandon9000 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I disagree with both your premise A and B.
(a) doomsday weapons should be kept out of the hands of extraordinarily evil dictators - at what cost? At what point have we caused more death trying to get rid of weapons - which we're never sure actually exist - than we would have prevented?
(b) having them confers near invulnerability, it's just the natural dynamics of the equation - no, it isn't. It's the perception that they confer invulnerability because we don't dare have someone use them against us which brings about this perception.
Say Iran had nukes. Does that prevent us from attacking them? Nope. It just raises the stakes. It's foolish to say that it confers invulnerability.
Cycloptichorn
I'm only alleging that one doesn't invade a nuclear power under any but the most extreme circumstances. I had said "near" invulnerability.
Non-relevant. One doesn't invade
anyone except under the most extreme circumstances.
The perception that we won't invade people who have nukes is built up by those who argue such as you do, Brandon. If other nations didn't hear people going on and on about their near-invulnerability that they would rec'v from a nuke, perhaps they wouldn't be trying to get one so bad.
Cycloptichorn
