Don't Start the Second Gulf War

National Review Online ^ | 8-12-02 | Doug Bandow

[NeoCaveman]

Yes, I have seen this report.

And should we not go after Al Queda and the regimes that aid and comfort them?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

That being said, there are a lot of countries who possess nuclear capabilities, including China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, and other extra-European nations.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

It looks to me like Saudi Arabia covertly allows terrorist activity in their country too. Not only that, but Iran, Turkey, and Pakistan have extremist terrorist elements residing within their borders also.

I would like you to name for me one Middle Eastern country which does not "harbor" some extreme America hating faction.

I suppose the real answer to this question of yours is whether or not you believe that apathy towards extremist factions within Middle Eastern countries is a pre-emptive move against the United States.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

By the way, I appreciate the respectful way in which you debate.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

And by the way, I like Condi Rice.

But perhaps it is an intellectual throw-back on her part to have her expertise reside in Cold-War Politics and the former Soviet Union.

[NeoCaveman]

It looks to me like Saudi Arabia covertly allows terrorist activity in their country too. Not only that, but Iran, Turkey, and Pakistan have extremist terrorist elements residing within their borders also.

Of the governments you mention....Iran is as guilty, Saudi Arabia may be too. Turkey and Pakistan's governments are relaible allies in this. Heck in the U.S. you can find Islamic extremists just recently 6 where apprehended in Buffalo, NY.

So why Iraq, we have to start somewhere, and people smarter than you and I have chosen to start with that criminal Saddam Hussein.

[NeoCaveman]

But perhaps it is an intellectual throw-back on her part to have her expertise reside in Cold-War Politics and the former Soviet Union.

I rather like having a Russian expert, they have oil and are more pro-capitalistic than our allegedy allies in Western Europe, except for Great Britian, of course.

[rightwing2]

What would the public reaction be to a preemptive strike against Norht Korea? Woudl the Koreans react across the DMZ? For the past umpteen years we have bombed the islamic countries (Iraq, Sudan, Pakistan, etc) with relative ease. Would the Chinese react? How about the Russians?

I dare say that the public reaction against an attack against North Korea would likely be more favorable than an attack on Iraq. Sure, the Koreans would probably react by crossing the DMZ and clearly we would have to be prepared for that contingency, but making the US safe from DPRK nuke attack just might be worth it. The ChiComs and Russkies would protest but do little more. The North Korean nuclear missile threat is essentially almost as much of a danger as the Russian MRBMs in Cuba in 1962. The only question is could we get them all and that we would want to have some limited missile defenses up to shoot down anything we miss. However, I think we can all agree on one thing, the Bush Administration's decision to continue the Clinton policy of building North Korea two big new nuclear weapons producing reactor is appeasement at its worst.

[carton253]

Are you saying, in this current climate, that the American people would favor an attack on North Korea over Iraq?

[rightwing2]

The argument is about Islamic militants. I believe that Iraq sponsors, forments, provides political cover for the terror we have watched during the last 12 years. Iraq is not in a box. Saddam Hussein is being given the opportunity to stand-down and disarm and to stop the export of terror against Israel and the US. He is not. It is the same song and dance we have seen. He doesn't have to be invaded. He can stand down. So far, he is choosing not to. This country can't afford to allow him to continue. Can Saddam destroy us as it stands. No! But, how many 9/11's are you willing to put up with why he remains in his box and continues to send Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas to do his bidding. For me, one was enough.

Saddam has not sent any terrorists out to do his bidding. The worst that can be said about him is that he provides lots of money to the families of suicide bombers who blow themselves up in order to kill Israelis which is bad, but does not constitute terrorism directed against Americans. There has been no evidence linking Saddam to any terrorist attacks committed against US territory at any time. The US already wiped out about 60% of Iraq’s military potential since 1991. He only has about 8-20 400 mile range SRBMs with which to threaten Israel with CBR attacks. He has seen his nuclear R&D capability completely wiped out between 1991and 1998.

Accordingly, Saddam is farther away from developing nukes today than he was in 1991 before we dismantled his nuke capability. Also, what exactly do you mean by “standing down?” If you are expecting him to disarm and dissolve his military, it won’t happen. That shouldn’t be our objective because it would result in an Iranian invasion and takeover of Iraq which has to be about the worst result imaginable for the Middle East, short of a US or Israeli nuclear incineration of Baghdad. Saddam has not been linked to 9-11. Iran has. Why then did the Adminstration promise Iran that it would not attack them?

Iraq is the immediate threat... Saddam poses the most serious threat. Arguments about China, etc. are distractions against the task ahead.

Saddam does not pose any threat to the US let alone an immediate one. It only threatens Israel and Kuwait and Iraq is deterred by using CBR against Israel by the knowledge that Israel would respond by nuking Baghdad. Iraq has demonstrated no capability or even the will to attack US territory with terrorists or WND or anything. Iraq can’t even shoot down one single fighter-bomber let alone threaten the world’s most powerful superpower. I can’t believe that the Administration can overlook these facts and say with a straight face that Iraq is on the verge of nuking US cities causing grandmas to cower in fear and demand that Iraq be nuked immediately to save America. This kind of hyped up rhetoric is not productive. There are a lot of Republicans in Congress who have heard all the top secret briefings and evidence from the President and remain unconvinced.

As for the rest of your last paragraph... I agree. Appeasement is weakness and it never gets you anywhere. But, do we fight all fronts at one time... or prioritize the threats.

We agree on the fact that it is important to prioritize the threats. We also agree that appeasement is the wrong policy even though that is exactly what the Bush Administration is doing with regards to North Korea and Communist China.We only differ on which countries should get blasted first and which pose the clearest and most present danger to the US. I assure you Iran is not teetering. The Iranian Ayatollahs are taking full control and cracking down on the “reformers” if they can be called that which have been subservient to them all along and continue to be so.

[rightwing2]

Are you saying, in this current climate, that the American people would favor an attack on North Korea over Iraq?

No, I am not because as you well know the Adminstration has spent nearly two years conditioning the American people to believe that Iraq is the greatest threat to America since the Soviet Union. At the same time the Bush Adminstration by its actions has led the American people to believe that the dictator of North Korea is somehow mellowing just because he has aceeded to the Clinton Agreed Framework in which the US pledged to sponsor the construction of two large nuclear-weapons producing factories which the DPRK can then use to build a lot more nukes than it already has with which to make good on its 1999 threat to turn America into "a sea of fire."

No, obviously it would take some major explaining by the Bush Administration to tell the American people why its decision to continue Clinton's appeasement of North Korea was a big mistake and why denuking North Korea by force would be a far wiser course, which is why I think it is highly unlikely that they will opt to abandon their Chamberlainian appeasement of Pyongyang anytime soon.

[carton253]

Well... maybe it is time you revealed who you really are since you seem so certain of the information you are posting. Maybe you can teach us something...

Are you high in the government, intelligence.. How do you know what is happening in Iran at this moment. I have already confessed that I am playing the what if game with limited information... but, you seem so sure.

You are awfully sure that Iraq is harmless -- again, may I know the source of this information.

You may think I'm being flip, but I'm not. If you are going to change my mind... then I need to know where you get your information.

[carton253]

This has been fun today, but I must say good-bye! Time to turn off the computer and head out. You have a great day!

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Kim Jong #2 is a looney.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Perhaps, but the Cold War is over, and has long as the Russian Mafia continues their sucessful black market work, economic progress in Russia will stay mediocre at best.

Capitalism is a good thing, but is doesn't always work where corruption is a societal norm.

[NeoCaveman]

Capitalism is a good thing, but is doesn't always work where corruption is a societal norm.

The rule of law is indepensible when it comes to capitalism.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Turkey and Pakistan's governments are relaible allies in this. Heck in the U.S. you can find Islamic extremists just recently 6 where apprehended in Buffalo, NY."

Now that you say this, Turkey is indeed an interesting prospect for the future. I think that Turkey has several important attributes indicating that they are a potential future great power. Turkey itself is a strategic location, I suppose, because it neighbors the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, and the Balkans, which are countries that possess key interests for the United States.

I think that Turkey's oil resources are pretty limited, but the interesting natural resource that this country does possess is water. Turkey controls at least the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, which gives it a strategic control over the water supply to the states south of Turkey, which would include Syria and Iraq.

I think that the issue of water supply has caused significant conflict between the tribes and clans of the Middle East. Deserts are not a good candidates economic investment and development mainly because there is no reliable water supply.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"The rule of law is indepensible when it comes to capitalism."

This is true. Many philosophers such as de Toqueville and Burke have noted the positive and productive influence that morals and religion has on society.

I also think of the traditional Puritan work ethic as being a good example of this.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I think it would be an interesting study to see how a lack of jobs and "stuff to do" affects the youth of the Middle East.

Besides the oil barons in the Middle East, there is a great lack of education and dependable jobs in numerous Middle Eastern countries. One might want to consider what kind of sociological and psycological impact this has on young males in the Middle East. Perhaps this frustrates them and leads them to all sorts of the worst kinds of religious and political extremism.

I do not say this as a point to exuse their ultimately unexusable actions, but perhaps as a prospect for future solutions to many of the social problems in the Middle East.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Ping, for your opinion on this subject.