Posted on 02/17/2003 12:23:31 AM PST by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:12:12 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
February 17, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice yesterday urged the United Nations to get tough with Baghdad - saying "appeasement" is no more likely to work with Saddam Hussein than it did with Adolf Hitler.
Her comment came as NATO handed the United States a welcome bit of good news - agreeing to provide military aid to Turkey in case of war.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I was listening to Pat Buchanan on DrudgeRadio tonight and he made some really good points about how going to Iraq is not in our interest.
But, I started thinking about the time before we entered WWII and I must disagree with him. The mood of the world is much the same (I imagine) as it was then.
How sad that we are not learning from history.
There is a problem with this argument: Iraq is most definitely not pre-WW2 Germany. Even in 1991, when Iraq was at the peak of its military might, the US had no problem whatsoever bombing it back into the stone age.
Today, Iraq's military capacity is no more than one third of what it was in 1991. Iraq's economy is devastated and its people is entirely dependent on the oil-for-food program. Iraq does not pose an immediate military threat to the US or its neighbors.
Except for it's WMD.
Except for it's WMD.
It is not clear whether Iraq has any significant number of WMDs left. Biological and chemical weapons degrade after five to ten years and become ineffective. The UN inspections have been described by Blix as "quite successful" at disarming Iraq. All but 5-10% of the WMDs have been accounted for, and the rest is probably useless by now.
There is no reason to believe that Iraq will attack any country in the near future, and it certainly has not the military means to attack the US.
Even if one assumes that Iraq has some grenades or canisters of nerve agent left, this does not justify a preemptive war of aggression. Virtually every country in the Middle East posesses WMDs, one country even has nuclear bombs. So far, no one has proposed disarming all those countries, much less wage war against them.
-All Terror, All the Time-- FR's links to NBC Warfare, Terror, and More...--
Seems to me, you got a lot of wax build-up in your ears.
This is a reasonable statement if you completely ignore that the biggest issues we have with Iraq are the fact that they have active WMD development programs and that they are providing safe haven and resources for terrorists to operate in. The war with Iraq IS the WAR ON TERROR. Why are some people having such difficulty in dealing with the obvious? When Clinton suggested such action in the late 90's, even the rats supported it wholeheartedly!
You cannot make a reasonable arguement unless you consider the facts and these are the cold, hard facts. Every nation which has intelligence on Iraqi operations knows this.
You cannot appease nor compromise with the very real evil we are dealing with. To make such statements one would really need to be assuming the following posture:
Blix made no such statement. In fact he said that there are tons of chemical weapons that have not been accounted for.
On what do you base your statement that these weapons are probably useless by now> How do you know when the last of these was manufactured?
Virtually every country in the Middle East posesses WMDs, one country even has nuclear bombs. So far, no one has proposed disarming all those countries, much less wage war against them.
And which of these countries has attacked it's neighbors, or used chemical agents to murder it's own people?
Even if one assumes that Iraq has some grenades or canisters of nerve agent left, this does not justify a preemptive war of aggression>
And this statement gives you away.
"Today, Iraq's military capacity is no more than one third of what it was in 1991. Iraq's economy is devastated and its people is entirely dependent on the oil-for-food program. Iraq does not pose an immediate military threat to the US or its neighbors.Let's put your proposition to the test by withdrawing all US forces from the Gulf, lifting the oil embargo and calling off the naval blockade. You posit that nothing "immediate" will happen to Oman, Bahrain and Kuwait. But even you will grant that Saddam will "immediately" start to rearm. Even without money he is trying to rearm.
Are seriously suggesting attacking every country that has a WMD program? If not - why only Iraq? Of all the countries in the region, Iraq has by far the smallest program - so small, that neither the UN inspectors nor the US intelligence agencies can find hard evidence for its existence. All that has surfaced so far is anecdotal evidence of a very dubious kind. But a full-scale WMD program has a large footprint and is not easy to conceal.
As for the single alleged terrorist who has appeared in Northern Iraq, which is controlled by the Kurdish allies of the US - that is fundamentally unimpressive. There are (have been) more terrorists in Northern Germany. When does the US plan to attack Germany?
"The war with Iraq IS the WAR ON TERROR. Why are some people having such difficulty in dealing with the obvious?"
That is an interesting statement. So far, the terrorists who have expressed their intent to harm the US, have mostly come from Saudi-Arabia and some other US allies. It is counter-intuitive to attack the only country in the region, which is not in some way affiliated with Islamic fundamentalism. Saddam Hussein has even tried to stem the tide by attacking Iran right after the Shah was deposed and the Ayatollah came to power.
In short, yes. Every ROUGUE state with WMD should be disarmed at all costs. At length, if you paid attention to the 2002 SOTUA, GWB defined the rougue states of concern as the "Axis Of Evil" to this date, many of those states identified have born out the truth of his statements. GWB is simply staying the course. It's tough to counter someone who's constantly proven to be right every time.
As for the single alleged terrorist who has appeared in Northern Iraq, which is controlled by the Kurdish allies of the US - that is fundamentally unimpressive. There are (have been) more terrorists in Northern Germany. When does the US plan to attack Germany?
I think your're attempting to evade the facts here. Iraq is a rougue state that has an active WMD program. They have not been able to explain the absence of known stockpiles of Bio/Chem agents to UN inspectors. Al Queda is known to have training camps in Iraq. There is evidence of financing and other aspects of direct ties between terrorists and Iraq. In addition, I'll simply state that Germany needs to be very concerned about our current relationship.
That is an interesting statement. So far, the terrorists who have expressed their intent to harm the US, have mostly come from Saudi-Arabia and some other US allies. It is counter-intuitive to attack the only country in the region, which is not in some way affiliated with Islamic fundamentalism. Saddam Hussein has even tried to stem the tide by attacking Iran right after the Shah was deposed and the Ayatollah came to power.
Head in the ground again, I just can't spend all day stating the basics of the situation. Either you will examine all of the facts or you won't.
As opposed to hundreds of tons of chemicals which have been accounted for.
I doubt that you know every single statement of Hans Blix. In any case, it has been stated not only by Blix, but also by other inspectors, that the inspections were gradually uncovering Iraq's weapons program. In 1998 it looked like the inspections were finally nearing completion, when the inspectors were pulled out of Iraq a few days ahead of the Desert Fox bombing campaign.
"'Virtually every country in the Middle East posesses WMDs, one country even has nuclear bombs. So far, no one has proposed disarming all those countries, much less wage war against them.'
And which of these countries has attacked it's neighbors, or used chemical agents to murder it's own people?"
There have been quite a few wars in the Middle East. Wars do not happen without one country attacking another.
Besides, describing Saddam as "murdering his own people" is like saying that Arafat is "murdering his own people" in Israel - the Kurds really are different people, which happens to be an issue in Turkey as well. Not that there is any moral difference between murdering your own or another people, the distinction is purely technical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.