Replies

This essay describes my views on the war. Given that this forum seems mostly to hold the opposite views, I would be very interested to hear some views/comments/ proofs why i'm wrong on it :).

Before dismissing it, please note that the website (http://www.bevin.de) also contains a heap of references backing up what the essay argues.

F.Y.I.:

Michael B signed up 2003-02-19. This account has been banned.

1. Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism. The Iraqis, arabs and muslims around the world will see such a war not only as a war on Islam, but also for what it mostly is about - an imperialistic grab for oil. Anyone doubting this need only consider Iraq's history. The CIA played a hand in overthrowing the government in Iraq in 1963 which led to Saddam's party and thus Saddam himself coming to power. The reason was that the government had moved to nationalise oil (exactly the same thing also happened in Iran). Going back further also gives a long history of the colonial power Britain treating Iraq atrociously in order to control their oil.
Anyone still doubting that oil is a motive behind the war need only consider the Bush Administration's deep ties with the oil industry, read about the English and US oil companies already lobbying over who gets to drill the Iraqi oil (Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world), or consider that a result of the war in Afghanistan was the US finally getting to build a pipeline through the country, or that high oil prices are currently threatening the US economy and could be reliably kept significantly lower if the US were to control Iraq's oil.

Oh, gee, if we defend ourselves, we might be attacked by terrorists!

Someone might attack the World Trade Center!

Our involvement in a Baathist coup in 1963 (the Baath had already taken over in 1957) is incidental to the present crisis.

In fact, it has nothing to do with it.

BTW, if this were about oil, we would have invaded Venezuela. Oil is fungible and can be had anywhere. This is about Saddam's possession of WMD and his ability to hand them off to Al Qaeda cutouts.

If it were only about oil, we would have made a deal with Saddam a long time ago.

Your raising of the Afghan pipeline issue is yet another canard: the fact that some companies want to build a pipeline in Afghanistan does not deny the virtue of our war on terrorism. Remember, we were attacked.

2. There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda. The best intelligence agencies (those of the US and Britain) in the world have been working flat out to try and find one, yet both reported no link (despite this fact, both Bush and Blair repeatedly cite information discredited by their own intelligence agencies as evidence of a link - if they are so convinced of the case for war they shouldn't need to lie in presenting it). British intelligence reports that even the possibility of a substantial link is unlikely, given that Osama is in ideological conflict with Saddam (in a recent tape Osama termed Saddam and his regime 'infidels').

Don't be a stupid git.

It is in AQ's interest to cooperate with a state. They get more goodies that way. Both Bush and Saddam have indicated extensive meetings between Saddam's Mukhabarat and AQ. You just don't want to believe what is in front of your lying eyes. Stating that its a conflict between secularists and fundamentalists doesn't alter the fact that the two sides have a confluence of interests.

You know, it was rather silly of you to raise this point.

3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. At least for his own people he had thus done a better job than most other Middle Eastern leaders, and now we're supposed to be saving his people from him? I'm not saying Saddam is all good, far from it, but he is far from the evil tyrant Bush depicts him to be (i.e. he did not gas his own people as Bush repeatedly claims).
Worth also noting is that the reason an estimated 5000-6000 children die due to starvation and lack of water and medication in Iraq every week is not Saddam or even the UN sanctions, but the fact that the US and UK have blocked the efforts of the oil-for-food program. The two successive UN leaders of the oil-for-food program resigned due to this fact, saying that Saddam had done his best to provide his people with food, and calling what the US and UK were doing 'genocide'.

I see. The attack on Halabja never occured.

Saddam has built a regime of terror. He attacked two neighboring countries. Over a million of his people have died as a direct result of his rule. Thousands of people disappear in Iraq every year.

The OFF program continued throughout the nineties. I strongly suggest that Saddam, like his contemporary in Pyongyang, uses his resources for palaces and weaponry. His responsibility is to feed his people. He abdicated that in favor of a regime of terror some time ago.

Your defense of Saddam, like you, is beneath contempt. You should be flogged, sir.

4. The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny. Iraq probably still has some 'weapons of mass destruction' of course, but an insignificant amount which pales in comparison to that of many other countries (including of course the US and Britain, but also less stable places such as Syria and the nuclear states of North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel).
Saddam has never been a threat to or threatened the US. This brings into question not only the motives for the war but also whether there is any right by international law to initiate one. Saddam's army was pathetic in the Gulf War and is much weaker now. Even CIA Director George Tenet's believes that the probability of Saddam Hussein initiating an attack on the United States is low, however 'should Saddam Hussein conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions'.
Saddam gives no evidence to being the irrational madman that Bush paints him to be (except perhaps when pushed into a corner as mentioned above and as evidenced by him firing missiles at Israel during the first Gulf War). His war on Iran was backed by the US, as was initially his invasion of Kuwait. If we are truly concerned about chemical and biological weapons, we might ask why the US has recently undermined the Chemical Weapons Convention by restricting inspections in the US, killed the Biological Weapons Convention and refused to sign an International Treaty banning germ warfare. We might also ask why the US had to edit Iraq's weapons declaration before releasing it to the public, removing 150 American, British and other foreign companies from it who illegally supplied Iraq's WMD in the first place.

What a series of lies and half truths.

First, Saddam can, if he so chooses, peddle WMD to Al Qaeda. This is what this war is about. Your inability to see that has less to do with the facts at hand than your denial of the truth.

I would go through your catalogue of lies, but let me cite two that are manifestly not true:

1. There remains vast quantities of unaccounted for WMD that Saddam produced in the nineties. We've only been told about the stuff that Saddam admitted to the inspectorate back in the nineties.
2. We did not approve of the invasion of Kuwait. It was April Glaspie's mistake not the warn Saddam off, but it was not our "plan" to have Saddam conquer Kuwait. This is a lie. You know it's a lie, but you peddled it anyway.

5. The US has a deplorable record of foreign intervention over the past 50 years. One need only look at all the well documented case of democratic governments that have been overthrown by CIA covert action and replaced with dictators (i.e. Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, Iran, Indonesia), or the US's blatant ignoring of the World Court (i.e. in the case of the World Court's ruling of $17 billion in damages to Nicaragua for damages incurred in the US's illegal war on it) and other world organisations' rulings or treaties. Such a country has no right to be playing global cop, and when it does we all end up worse off.

Pardon me, but so the f$#k what?

Whatever we did in Guatemala or Iran has nothing to do with this conflict, save in your addled mind.

You don't want us to see to our national interests? Okay. Maybe you should wish away the results of World War II. Then go practice your German.

You on the left disgust me. Your appeasement of evil is grounded in a hatred of America. You only love America when you rule America, and that will not be happening for a very, very long time.

Now go back to DU and play in your intellectual sandbox. It's all you deserve.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

they normally censor anything but the groupthink view, or it will be moved into the backroom.

Target practice? yeah, that's it.

anybody remember the name of the nearsighted clown on F Troop who couldn't hit the side of a battleship with a bb?

3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.

At least in part by invading and pillaging a small neighbor. Before the Allied "sanctions" Mussolini made the trains run on time.

-Eric

Saddam has never been a threat to or threatened the US.

Chowderhead, the act of publicly enumerating (Whoops, better use smaller words for you) paying terrorists' families tens of thousands, to, of course, promote terrorism, is a threat to any thinking person on the face of this planet. Wish away unpleasant thoughts, spend a Saturday or Sunday in a park in concert with others hating america, and chant over and over "No blood for oil" until you are sure it must be the truth.

1. Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism.

This approach at first blush seems to be cowardly and, even if it isn't what it seems, as a principle it makes us defenseless. It plays right into the hands of terrorism. So, if someone murders your family you will do nothing for fear of making their attackers even angrier. You're losing credibilty fast with your first premise.

2. There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda.

I don't care, Saddam is still a huge menace and a resource for all manner of terrorists. What is it about his WMD that you missed? You wait until its proven and the world will be a happier place---not really.

3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.

Before attacking Kuwait Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. Such are vicissitudes of making war...Saddam has brought ruin upon his country.

4. The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny.

We should wait until it gets larger, such as when he nukes Israel.

5. The US has a deplorable record of foreign intervention over the past 50 years.

No it doesn't. You omitting all the good we do daily and have done since WWII. We are the world's largest benefactor, by far. Name one country that has approached the level of our foreign aid program.

In sum, your five points are cowardly, unrealistically idealistic and based upon dangerously false assumptions which do not look at the big picture.

Give war a chance!

Does Iraq have the same determination war making capability inherent in the German demeanor?

PEACE FOR OUR TIME

Alistair Cooke

...I promised to lay off topic A - Iraq - until the Security Council makes a judgment on the inspectors' report and I shall keep that promise.

But I must tell you that throughout the past fortnight I've listened to everybody involved in or looking on to a monotonous din of words, like a tide crashing and receding on a beach - making a great noise and saying the same thing over and over. And this ordeal triggered a nightmare - a day-mare, if you like.

Through the ceaseless tide I heard a voice, a very English voice of an old man - Prime Minister Chamberlain saying: "I believe it is peace for our time" - a sentence that prompted a huge cheer, first from a listening street crowd and then from the House of Commons and next day from every newspaper in the land.

There was a move to urge that Mr Chamberlain should receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

In Parliament there was one unfamiliar old grumbler to growl out: "I believe we have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat." He was, in view of the general sentiment, very properly booed down.

This scene concluded in the autumn of 1938 the British prime minister's effectual signing away of most of Czechoslovakia to Hitler. The rest of it, within months, Hitler walked in and conquered. "Oh dear," said Mr Chamberlain, thunderstruck. "He has betrayed my trust."

During the last fortnight a simple but startling thought occurred to me --every single official, diplomat, president, prime minister involved in the Iraq debate was in 1938 a toddler, most of them unborn. So the dreadful scene I've just drawn will not have been remembered by most listeners.

Hitler had started betraying our trust not 12 years but only two years before, when he broke the First World War peace treaty by occupying the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland. Only half his troops carried one reload of ammunition because Hitler knew that French morale was too low to confront any war just then and 10 million of 11 million British voters had signed a so-called peace ballot. It stated no conditions, elaborated no terms, it simply counted the numbers of Britons who were "for peace".

The slogan of this movement was "Against war and fascism" - chanted at the time by every Labour man and Liberal and many moderate Conservatives - a slogan that now sounds as imbecilic as "against hospitals and disease". In blunter words a majority of Britons would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of Hitler except fight him.

At that time the word pre-emptive had not been invented, though today it's a catchword. After all the Rhineland was what it said it was - part of Germany. So to march in and throw Hitler out would have been pre-emptive - wouldn't it?

Nobody did anything and Hitler looked forward with confidence to gobbling up the rest of Western Europe country by country - "course by course", as growler Churchill put it.

I bring up Munich and the mid-30s because I was fully grown, on the verge of 30, and knew we were indeed living in the age of anxiety. And so many of the arguments mounted against each other today, in the last fortnight, are exactly what we heard in the House of Commons debates and read in the French press.

The French especially urged, after every Hitler invasion, "negotiation, negotiation". They negotiated so successfully as to have their whole country defeated and occupied. But as one famous French leftist said: "We did anyway manage to make them declare Paris an open city - no bombs on us!"

In Britain the general response to every Hitler advance was disarmament and collective security. Collective security meant to leave every crisis to the League of Nations. It would put down aggressors, even though, like the United Nations, it had no army, navy or air force.

The League of Nations had its chance to prove itself when Mussolini invaded and conquered Ethiopia (Abyssinia). The League didn't have any shot to fire. But still the cry was chanted in the House of Commons - the League and collective security is the only true guarantee of peace.

But after the Rhineland the maverick Churchill decided there was no collectivity in collective security and started a highly unpopular campaign for rearmament by Britain, warning against the general belief that Hitler had already built an enormous mechanized army and superior air force.

But he's not used them, he's not used them - people protested.

Still for two years before the outbreak of the Second War you could read the debates in the House of Commons and now shiver at the famous Labour men -Major Attlee was one of them - who voted against rearmament and still went on pointing to the League of Nations as the savior.

Now, this memory of mine may be totally irrelevant to the present crisis. It haunts me.

I have to say I have written elsewhere with much conviction that most historical analogies are false because, however strikingly similar a new situation may be to an old one, there's usually one element that is different and it turns out to be the crucial one. It may well be so here.

All I know is that all the voices of the 30s are echoing through 2003...

Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism.

Disagree. Destabilizing areas that support terrorists makes it more difficult for terror cells to operate. Keep in mind cells in the US draw upon support activities from areas in the Mideast.

The Iraqis, arabs and muslims around the world will see such a war not only as a war on Islam, but also for what it mostly is about - an imperialistic grab for oil. Anyone still doubting that oil is a motive behind the war need only consider the Bush Administration's deep ties with the oil industry...

If this is about oil, why has the Administration done nothing to end the general strike in Venezuela? That would have a more significant and immediate impact on oil prices than war with Iraq. What's more, the President's "oil buddies" would likely benefit more by drilling right here in America versus in Iraq. Your argument makes no sense.

There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda.

This is also somewhat problematic for me. However, reasonable inferences can be made about the WMD Saddam has pursued, and his willingness to supply terrorists with these weapons.

Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. At least for his own people he had thus done a better job than most other Middle Eastern leaders, and now we're supposed to be saving his people from him? Worth also noting is that the reason an estimated 5000-6000 children die due to starvation and lack of water and medication in Iraq every week is not Saddam or even the UN sanctions, but the fact that the US and UK have blocked the efforts of the oil-for-food program.

The more accurate reason is because Saddam has directed available funds away from building infrastructure to help Iraq's citizens, and toward building a military. Saddam himself to is blame for the deplorable conditions in his country.

The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny. Iraq probably still has some 'weapons of mass destruction' of course, but an insignificant amount which pales in comparison to that of many other countries (including of course the US and Britain, but also less stable places such as Syria and the nuclear states of North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel).

The difference is Saddam's willingness to use his WMD on civilians, even if it means delivering them through terrorist attacks.

All your points are moot. You have no say-so. The fact that you don't support "a non-UN backed war on Iraq" does not matter. You have no more control over whether we will fix what's broke in Iraq than you do controlling your post here.

And that's a beautiful thing......

This Gent has now been banned. He should have been allowed to stay. This one was easy.

Michael,

Rather than trying to refute each point step by step, I'd ask you a few questions. Don't worry; this won't be some overbearing adult lecture. I'll bet you have had a lot of them from Father figures, haven't you? If you are able to answer these questions honestly, then I will take the time to refute and educate you on each item if you wish.

On the other hand, I think that if you answer these questions truthfully, at least to yourself, you will understand the basic lack of foundation or validity of your original post.

You post is clearly focused dogma. It obviously comes from a basic point of view that the U.S. is evil; therefore the opinions you state are "functionally true." When the far-left uses the term "functionally true," they mean, that even if the facts aren't correct, they should be and do support the underlying, but false, argument. The question. Have you ever taken the time to PERSONALLY verify your "facts" or are they simply reiteration of others statements?

Secondly, although you believe this is all solid, new conclusions, in reality, it is the same "hate the US" stuff we were all exposed to when we were in school. It almost seems like a final exam essay for a sophomore first semester 20th century events class. It reads like so much regurgitation to a teaching assistant who only wants to hear his or her own opinions. How far in your schooling are you?

Finally, why don't you take some time to travel? You write well? Take some time to travel and see other countries and cultures. It will give you a very different view of the world. Then write about what you see, not what you have been told you will see.

In many ways, your post leads me to paraphrase Mark Twain:

"When I was 18, I knew my father was the most ignorant, foolish man in the world.

When I was 28, I was amazed how much he had learned in the past 10 years!"

No hate here, but good luck in adulthood. You will need it.

1. Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism.

Terror is not new.

When the consequences of using terror exceed the hoped for gains, the terror will stop.

When you look at what terrorists hoped to gain by summarily executing 3000 civilians working in our financial center, you have to conclude that THEY BELIEVED THEY COULD TAKE OUR ECONOMY DOWN, and thereby our country. The zeal of the suicide pilots would not have been possible without this belief. It has now become painfully obvious to potential suicide bombers that no such outcome is possible.

The rout in Afghanistan was the first in a series of psychological blows which will eliminate terror as a weapon to be used against the US. Remember, our enemy is terror, and the potential perpetrators reside in the entire Middle East, not just within al-Qaeda. When Iraq falls, the US will no longer need to beg (and pay billions) for a base in Saudi Arabia, as we will have one in Iraq.

When Iraq falls, ten percent of the world's oil will be under the control of the Great Satan, dealing a death blow to OPEC. No small consequence for the region's leaders who stood back and watched the celebrations in "the arab street" and did nothing. With the death of OPEC, the engine of the US economy becomes fuel injected, a deserved touche to the choice of targets on the part of our enemy.

The Arab world will wake up to a new dawn, as the presence of their new neighbor will bring humiliation and the knowledge that they have only the terror masters to blame.

Micheal Bolton! I hate that guy!

Worth also noting is that the reason an estimated 5000-6000 children die due to starvation and lack of water and medication in Iraq every week is not Saddam or even the UN sanctions, but the fact that the US and UK have blocked the efforts of the oil-for-food program.

Meanwhile Saddam has built himself 19 palaces? Meanwhile Saddam is buying high quality aluminum tubing for his weapons program?

Sorry, not buying the "it's not Saddam's fault children are starving" bit. He has taken hold of Iraqi wealth and is using for himself, like all good despots do.

Oh, BTW, here is how Saddam treats "his people"...

SADDAM HUSSEIN’S REPRESSION OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE

UNSCR 688 “condemns” Saddam Hussein’s repression of the Iraqi civilian population -- “the consequences of which threaten international peace and security.” UNSCR 688 also requires Saddam Hussein to end his repression of the Iraqi people and to allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to help those in need of assistance.

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated these provisions and has: expanded his violence against women and children; continued his horrific torture and execution of innocent Iraqis; continued to violate the basic human rights of the Iraqi people and has continued to control all sources of information (including killing more than 500 journalists and other opinion leaders in the past decade).

Saddam Hussein has also harassed humanitarian aid workers; expanded his crimes against Muslims; he has withheld food from families that fail to offer their children to his regime; and he has continued to subject Iraqis to unfair imprisonment.10

REFUSAL TO ADMIT HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORS

§ The UN Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly issued a report that noted "with dismay" the lack of improvement in the situation of human rights in Iraq. The report strongly criticized the "systematic, widespread, and extremely grave violations of human rights" and of international humanitarian law by the Iraqi Government, which it stated resulted in "all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror." The report called on the Iraqi Government to fulfill its obligations under international human rights treaties. § Saddam Hussein has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors and the establishment of independent human rights organizations.

From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.11 § In September 2001 the Government expelled six UN humanitarian relief workers without providing any explanation.12

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

§ Human rights organizations and opposition groups continued to receive reports of women who suffered from severe psychological trauma after being raped by Iraqi personnel while in custody.13 § Former Mukhabarat member Khalid Al-Janabi reported that a Mukhabarat unit, the Technical Operations Directorate, used rape and sexual assault in a systematic and institutionalized manner for political purposes. The unit reportedly also videotaped the rape of female relatives of suspected oppositionists and used the videotapes for blackmail purposes and to ensure their future cooperation.§ In June 2000, a former Iraqi general reportedly received a videotape of security forces raping a female family member. He subsequently received a telephone call from an intelligence agent who stated that another female relative was being held and warned him to stop speaking out against the Iraqi Government.15

§ Iraqi security forces allegedly raped women who were captured during the Anfal Campaign and during the occupation of Kuwait. 16

§ Amnesty International reported that, in October 2000, the Iraqi Government executed dozens of women accused of prostitution.17

§ In May, the Iraqi Government reportedly tortured to death the mother of three Iraqi defectors for her children’s opposition activities.18

§ Iraqi security agents reportedly decapitated numerous women and men in front of their family members. According to Amnesty International, the victims’ heads were displayed in front of their homes for several days.

19 TORTURE § Iraqi security services routinely and systematically torture detainees. According to former prisoners, torture techniques included branding, electric shocks administered to the genitals and other areas, beating, pulling out of fingernails, burning with hot irons and blowtorches, suspension from rotating ceiling fans, dripping acid on the skin, rape, breaking of limbs, denial of food and water, extended solitary confinement in dark and extremely small compartments, and threats to rape or otherwise harm family members and relatives. Evidence of such torture often was apparent when security forces returned the mutilated bodies of torture victims to their families.20

§ According to a report received by the UN Special Rapporteur in 1998, hundreds of Kurds and other detainees have been held without charge for close to two decades in extremely harsh conditions, and many of them have been used as subjects in Iraq’s illegal experimental chemical and biological weapons programs.21

§ In 2000, the authorities reportedly introduced tongue amputation as a punishment for persons who criticize Saddam Hussein or his family, and on July 17, government authorities reportedly amputated the tongue of a person who allegedly criticized Saddam Hussein. Authorities reportedly performed the amputation in front of a large crowd. Similar tongue amputations also reportedly occurred.22

Yep
I can remember all the hand wringing when Reagan went after Kadafi
It would make him a hero to the Arab world. They would rally around him and unite against the USA blah blah
Them F-111s almost fried his sorry butt and he has been a man of peace ever since

Put your peace sign down and go talk to some Iraqi defectors! After that, explain to me where you were when Clinton was dropping the bombs. This is not about oil....at least not for the United States and I don't think their is a American alive who would allow a president to go into another country to control it. That job belongs to Saddam....it doesn't matter that he invaded neighboring countries or that he is responsible for millions of murders. It doesn't matter that his son rapes and tortures at his free will and for enjoyment purposes.

The real terrorist is Saddam and it's people like you who make his job a hell of alot easier! Go peddle your terrorists supporting ideas somewhere else.

Five important reasons why I don't support a non-UN-backed war on Iraq:

Am I to assume all your objections would vanish, if the UN were to back military action in Iraq?

What a hypocrite. If you'd said you would NEVER support a war on Iraq for any reason, you'd at least get points for consistency from me.

But your very first point was that the UN hasn't given "permission", as if we needed it in the first place. If all the pampered thugs in the UN were in favor of this, I suppose you'd go along with them? Hmmm?

Comparison-Iraq Inspections & Treaty Versailles 1919 by former Deputy UNSCOM Dir Charles Duelfer
The World on PRI ^ | 2-17-03 | Lisa Mullens

Posted on 02/18/2003 2:27 PM PST by Kay Soze

Welcome to PRI's The World: your daily international news magazine.

Question: Ray Paulie was curios about something- “How the weapons inspections carried out by the UN and Iraq compare to the inspections carried out in Germany by France under the Peace Treaty of Versailles of 1919?” Comparison of Current Iraq Inspections and the Peace Treaty of Versailles 1919 by UNSCOM former Deputy Director Charles Duelfer

Mullens: “French and other international inspectors did try to disarm Germany after the Treaty Of Versailles.”

”Who in the World turns to Charles Duelfer for a comparison with Iraq. For seven years Mr. Duelfer was deputy chairman for UNSCOM that’s the UN commission that inspected Iraq in the 90’s.”

“He said the inspectors in Germany after WW1 ran into the same problems UNSCOM did after the Gulf War.”

Duelfer: “While the Germans gave up certain things they also tended to hide certain things for example; they had a large number of forces which they were supposed to demobilize. Well at the same time they were demobilizing army units the inspectors found that mysteriously there were a very large number of police units being created. In the area of weapons production is the famous Krup arms firm building things and moving them to civilian sectors so that the production capacities were hidden.”

“All the same techniques were applied and same problems ensued.”

Mullens: “And so what was the immediate parallel there, I mean why can we see Iraq and Germany just post WW1 as being kind of two of a kind. What was happening with in the country at the time?”

Duelfer:“Well it was a defeated Nation and what was being asked by the country was to give up something which it considered vital to its national security.”

Mullins: “And you’re saying that’s the case in both cases.”

Duelfer: “I think that true with respect to Germany I mean they the German nation was only recently kind of solidified and a lot of the unity depended upon the Reichstag or the army and what the international community was demanding was that they give up that unifying element. Same thing like wise is taking place with Iraq. Where I think we under estimated the just how important weapons of mass destruction were to the regime in Baghdad.”

Mullins: “So the weapons of mass destruction because they define Saddam Hussein at least in his eyes then the inspections are pretty much doomed to fail- would you say?”

Duelfer: “I think there doomed yes because the international community has asked Iraq and in the case in 1918 Germany to give up something which is existential from their calculation and yet there is no existential threat or reward to cause that to happen. Germany was not occupied after the first WW similarly Iraq was not occupied.”

“I think one of the lessons Saddam learned early on in 1991 when they very seriously blocked inspectors, was that the council was not going do anything which would threaten the existence of his regime.”

Mullins: “OK Lets go back to Germany just post WW1. I mean obviously you could consider it a failure but the inspectors did manage to reduce the size of the German army and they did force Germany to destroy some stock piles of weapons at least while the inspectors were there, I mean they seem to be able to neutralize the German threat.”

Duelfer: “That’s true, the problem is in both of these cases is benefit of the inspectors sustainable?

Mullins: “Well is not a short term gain worth something?

Duelfer: “It is, certainly Iraq now has fewer weapons than it would’ve had UNSCOM not done its work. But the question is; Is it sustainable?

“Even now when Iraq is being much more cooperative than they have been in the past there doing so because there is a huge array of forces around them at great expense. And I dare say that’s not going to be sustainable over the long haul.”

Mullins: “Let me bring in South Africa here I mean Colin Powell the secretary of state has cited it as something of a blueprint for how inspections could work and just for some background here South Africa had begun a nuclear weapons program sometime in the 1970’s because it wanted to deter its neighboring states who were against the apartheid system at the time.
Then it was around 1993 that South Africa’s president said basically we have dismantled pls inspectors come and see for your self.

Duelfer: “I think its an interesting example but it not very close to the circumstances in Iraq. South Africa was acting in their own interests when it decided to disarm we’re talking about coercive disarmament with respect to Iraq. They clearly don’t believe getting rid of these weapons is in their interests.”

Mullins: “So if South Africa wanted to be welcomed into the international Community is there any kind of possible parallel that could be offered to Iraq I mean isn’t that even conceivable?”

Duelfer: “Well there is if you begin to think about Saddam and his top leaders leaving , I mean if Saddam and his top two or three dozen people left I think the UN could do a tremendous job of assuring the region and the world that the programs were gone and that would be the first step towards addressing the issue more strongly with Iran and some of the neighboring states which are thought to have weapons programs like this.”

Mullins: “Given the fact that inspections have been around for so long why do you think there haven’t been better lessons learned, I mean with the exception of places like South Africa?

Duelfer: “Well there haven’t been that many inspection systems which are based on non cooperative arrangements. Most of the inspections which you see are pursuant to some sort of arms control agreement and this is steadfastly not arms control its coercive disarmament and those are two very separate circumstances.”
”That is why the analogy with the Versailles Treaty number one is very interesting because it is a case like the one we face with Iraq. But the inspections and verification systems that you’re familiar with from the nuclear talks the SALT and the START arrangements and the things in Europe those are based on two parties or more acting in what they believe to be their mutual self interests. And that a different case than what we face in Iraq.”

Mullins: “The work that we are talking about as inspectors is work that you took part in yourself, that you managed for a considerable amount of time as the deputy chairman of UNSCOM. Do you feel it was a waste of time or something just short of that?”

Duelfer: “No it was not a waste of time at all. We did a lot of very good work but the question was, you know what were the objectives of our manager we worked for the security council which is a group of fifteen nations and its a bit like having a Cybil for your boss. “In other words somebody with multiple personalities and each of those members of the Security Council I think had really other objectives and agendas which they were pursuing.

”Some people were interested in containment some people were interested in other aspects of their relationships with Iraq we did a lot but ultimately we could not cause a nation state with all the massive resources that it had to fully cooperate and fully comply.”

Mullins:“Charles Duelfer Thank you.”
”Charles Duelfer was Deputy Director of UNSCOM from 1993 to March of 2000. He is now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.”

4. The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny.

I agree. It is as tiny as the smallpox virus, a molecule of VX gas or the Plutonium atom itself.

Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism

Then they have already won.

If the aim of terrorism is to influence behavior through the threat of violence and we do nothing to oppose it, then they are now in control of our foreign policy and defense policy. There is now only one way remaining to show them that they are not...

As to your arguments, we have heard them all before and they have all been addressed on this forum, over and over and over.

We don't care one way or another if you are convinced of the need to go to war; indeed, I assume that there is nothing which would convince you to go to war. And we can assume that there is nothing that would convince you to intervene if you saw a person getting mugged or raped in a side street. Intervention might cause more muggings and rapes, after all...namely YOURS.

Yours is the mentality of a person who has already tasted defeat and found the flavor of boots more tolerable than the feel of scraped knuckles. You believe that because you find defeat palatable, that others should, too.

The simple FACT of the matter is that we have been at war now since Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 90s. Iraq started the war, and we opted not to finish it because the liberals whined then about how "brutal" we were to those who had raped and pillaged Kuwait, to those who had set fire to what remained of her wealth, to those who in an act of spite wasted a nation's precious resources by pumping crude into the Gulf; how terrible we were to those who hoped to foul nations' water supplies with oil before fleeing northward with their weapons and captives so as to live and fight another day against a weaker enemy. And now, after about 12 years of continuous Iraqi cease fire violations, Iraqi bribery, blackmail, threats, and stalling, all accompanied by the steady repetitious cicadalike whining of liberals that the sanctions were killing the children... we now have liberals wanting the sanctions to continue while an endless circle-jerk of inspections accomplishes exactly nothing other than to give Hussein more time to kill.

Now we are resolved to finish that which should have been finished not in the name of the UN but in the name of something higher, our country, our names, the only names that ever count. And the average Iraqi is going to be very glad to see us.