RICE WARNS AGAINST A 'HITLER' MISTAKE

New York Post ^ | 2/17/03 | VINCENT MORRIS

[kattracks]

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.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"As long as you (or a member of the US administration) cannot provide a universal definition of "rogue state", which is shared by the rest of the world, the use of this term will only lead to confusion - and eventually to madmen attacking the US, because they have mistaken this country for a "rogue state"."

"Rogue state" has been around at least as long as Libya. It refers to a state that supports terrorism, openly or covertly. Iraq certainly qualifies, as did Afghanistan. Certainly Pakistan, Iran, N. Korea, and the Palestinian Authority also qualify.

Since we have declared war on terrorism, any state supporting it is also our enemy. This is the major justification for invading Iraq; denying al Qaeda a place for operations and a source for weaponry.

The other arguments for invasion, WMD, Saddam's depraved dictatorship, even his danger to his neighbors, a mere rationalizations (although valid) to "sell" the war domestically and internationally. I don't mind using them as such, but I think the prime reason should be emphasized more.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are interesting cases. Both governments are giving real aid to the war on terror, while domestically they must oppose the US. As long as this is lip service and they don't really support terrorist, I can live with the fiction and duplicity. If they backstab us, go get 'em.

[VRWC_minion]

First one to invoke Hitler loses the debate ?

[VRWC_minion]

Iraq does not pose an immediate military threat to the US or its neighbors.

Neither did O'sama holed up in Afghanistan.

[VRWC_minion]

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

Then Iraq is tremendously stupid because by simply demonstrating that this is what took effect it would avoid certain war. In addition, Han's Blix ought to be well aware of this and why is he assuming that they still need to account for their biological and chemical weapons.

Your assumptions don't seem to jive with the actions of the parties.

[VRWC_minion]

Why should Saddam Hussein want to repeat his Kuwait experience?

Why should he not fully cooperate and disarm ?

[Redleg Duke]

In the late 30's and early 40's we had an armpit full of nitwits like Buchanan, claiming what was happening in Europe and the Far East were "not in the US's interest!"

They were wrong then...he is wrong now!

[Redleg Duke]

Welcome to FR! So you are the latest probe from DU, eh?

Time to go back...I hear they are having German Whine and French Cheese today.

[Richard Kimball]

A technical difference between who is murdered? That's rather callous, isn't it? They're all still dead. I guess Saddam's people are just those members of his own clan.

Don't know if I can call it callous, although I believe Saddam has murdered even some of his own family members. I think the distinction is that if someone is willing to murder a member of their own clan, you can be reasonably sure they will kill anyone.

Callahan: You know, you're crazy if you think you've heard the last of this guy. He's gonna kill again.
District Attorney: How do you know?
Callahan: 'Cause he likes it.

[Kuroshio]

"'Rogue state' has been around at least as long as Libya. It refers to a state that supports terrorism, openly or covertly. Iraq certainly qualifies, as did Afghanistan. Certainly Pakistan, Iran, N. Korea, and the Palestinian Authority also qualify."

Then the US qualifies as well. An uncontroversial example would be the support for and involvement in terrorism in Nicaragua, for which the US has been condemned by the world court. There are many more instances of US support for terrorism, even more extreme, but less clear-cut.

"Since we have declared war on terrorism, any state supporting it is also our enemy."

If applied universally, this statement means that every other state has the right to attack the US. Certainly Nicaragua would have had the right to bomb the US.

"The other arguments for invasion, WMD, Saddam's depraved dictatorship, even his danger to his neighbors, a mere rationalizations (although valid) to 'sell' the war domestically and internationally."

Agreed - except for the "valid" part.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"Then the US qualifies as well. An uncontroversial example would be the support for and involvement in terrorism in Nicaragua, for which the US has been condemned by the world court. There are many more instances of US support for terrorism, even more extreme, but less clear-cut."

I assume you're refering to the contras who fought the communist Sandinistas in the '80's. Hmmm, I don't think I've seen evidence they attacked civilians. I assume you have such evidence?

Assuming that they did attack civilians not involved with the government or military, and this was a policy, not just an isolated individual, I certainly would want to support another group. Some advocates of "real-politik" would advocate supporting any group that would overthrow a communist government. I wouldn't.

""Since we have declared war on terrorism, any state supporting it is also our enemy."

If applied universally, this statement means that every other state has the right to attack the US. Certainly Nicaragua would have had the right to bomb the US."

Not quite the same situation. The Nicaraguan contras were natives who were rebelling against the communist government. To be analogous, we'd have to host and train them in our country while they had the avowed policy of killing uninvolved civilians, not just in Nicaragua, but worldwide, as the al Qaeda does.

But were we to do that, and if they had such a policy, I would agree Nicaragua or any country fighting terrorism
would be justified in attacking the US to eliminate them.

[wretchard]

Sir, you are selectively citing factoids to assert the contrary of the obvious.

"Why should Saddam Hussein want to repeat his Kuwait experience? In 1991, he believed that his aggression would be ignored, just like his war of aggression against Iran has not only been ignored, but actively supported by the US."

Assertion: America created Saddam. How can it be it's enemy? You can say that America created Saddam. But you must acknowledge that Iraq was created in 1923 by France and England. You can allege US intelligence support against Iran. But you cannot deny that Iraq was armed largely by France and Russia for its war on Iran. The Mirages, Sukhois, Migs, Scuds, Russian armor and German poison gas all speak volumes for themselves. You can assert we were Saddam's allies -- but not to the the widows of the USS Stark which was attacked by an Iraqi Super Entendard (made in France, pilots trained in France).

"Today, Saddam Hussein cannot possibly be under the impression, that the US will leave an attack against a neighboring country unanswered ... Bush's policies have been a very effective advertising campaign for WMDs - now everybody wants them.

Assertion: Saddam can be contained and it's OK if he arms. You say America wants Saddam to have WMDs. You say it advertises them like toothpaste. You say everybody has breeder reactors like those built at Osirak from France. Yet Saddam cannot possibly be under the impression that the US will leave an attack against a neighboring country unanswered. Having been encouraged to do the first, why would he believe the second?

"Disarmament can only work on an international level ... After WW2, the UN was created to stop all wars.

Assertion: the UN will disarm tyrants. This is assertion is so counterfactual that you cannot even cite an example.

There is one more point that I cannot let go unanswered:

"The Mujahedeen and Osama bin Laden received funding and some military equipment from the US and its ally Pakistan.

The Mujahedeen and Osama are not synonymous. Ask the widow of Massoud. We funded the one and not the other. The Saudis funded the other. And it was precisely because we funded the one that they killed the one and funded the other.

[Kuroshio]

"'Then the US qualifies as well. An uncontroversial example would be the support for and involvement in terrorism in Nicaragua, for which the US has been condemned by the world court. [...]'

I assume you're refering to the contras who fought the communist Sandinistas in the '80's. Hmmm, I don't think I've seen evidence they attacked civilians. I assume you have such evidence?"

The Contras attacked almost exclusively "soft targets" - elected officials, teachers, doctors, nurses, etc. That is hardly a secret; you might wish to read some articles from that time.

"The Nicaraguan contras were natives who were rebelling against the communist government. To be analogous, we'd have to host and train them in our country while they had the avowed policy of killing uninvolved civilians, not just in Nicaragua, but worldwide, as the al Qaeda does."

The Contras were recruited, trained and armed by the CIA. The CIA training manuals explicitly called for the "selective use of violence for propagandistic effect."

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1997_rpt/soarpt.htm

Why do you require the terrorists to operate worldwide, as well as the training not to take place in some client state like Honduras? That does not make sense.

"But were we to do that, and if they had such a policy, I would agree Nicaragua or any country fighting terrorism would be justified in attacking the US to eliminate them."

Welcome to hell.

[Eva]

I wasn't going to bother to reply to your first post, but since you persist in your policy of appeasement, I must ask you what you think Saddam has been doing with the mobile labs? Do you think that he is using them to store 10 year old WMD? Think before you post, please.

[razbinn]

OMG....what a GREAT picture,ought to be put on the leaflets being dropped.......

[Eva]

I should add that the job of the inspectors was to verify that Iraq had disposed of all their WMD and no longer possessed any new WMD, not to disarm Saddam. Saddam was supposed to disarm himself and show evidence of his compliance with the UN resolutions. He did neither. To allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power is to allow him to expand his tyranny beyond the borders of Iraq. World peace will be sacrificed by complacency and cowardice.

[razbinn]

**ck OFF

[Kuroshio]

"Assertion: America created Saddam. How can it be it's enemy? You can say that America created Saddam."

That is a strawman argument. The US has supported Iraq in its war with Iran -- by providing intelligence, as well as equipment to produce chemical weapons when Iraq started losing the war.

"But you cannot deny that Iraq was armed largely by France and Russia for its war on Iran."

Do you seriously suggest that it is a good thing if the US follows the lead of France and the USSR (RIP)? In this matter, anyway.

"You can assert we were Saddam's allies -- but not to the the widows of the USS Stark which was attacked by an Iraqi Super Entendard."

This makes Israel and Iraq the only two countries, which were allowed to attack a US vessel without consequences.

You say America wants Saddam to have WMDs. You say it advertises them like toothpaste.

It seems you have misinterpreted my statement. It is the US policy of "regime change" in designated "rogue states" which encourages many countries to acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea has shown that nuclear deterrence really works.

"You say America wants Saddam to have WMDs."

That was certainly true when Iraq was fighting Iran. Now the WMDs are a nuissance, but also a formidable pretext for war.

"You say everybody has breeder reactors like those built at Osirak from France. Yet Saddam cannot possibly be under the impression that the US will leave an attack against a neighboring country unanswered. Having been encouraged to do the first, why would he believe the second?"

That is the problem, is it not? Having been encouraged in his war of aggression against Iran, Saddam Hussein thought nothing of attacking Kuwait. Now that this "misunderstanding" has been resolved, it is unlikely that Iraq will start another war.

"Assertion: the UN will disarm tyrants. This is assertion is so counterfactual that you cannot even cite an example."

Selective disarmament does not work well. Besides, disarming "tyrants" might prove difficult, when Europe and the US keep arming them.

You forget the disarmament treaties between the USSR and the USA. Plus the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties which until recently have worked quite well.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1997_rpt/soarpt.htm

Why do you require the terrorists to operate worldwide, as well as the training not to take place in some client state like Honduras? That does not make sense."

The context is the war against terror. This is not a war on all terrorism everywhere--strictly those terrorist groups which operate on a worldwide basis against the US. We are not fighting the IRA or the Tamil Tigers or the Shining Path guerillas, which operate on a local, national basis.

This is the categorty in which I'd put the Sandinista contras. I'm still not sure if this torture policy or was against civilians occasionally, always, or not, or if it was limited to this one individual. In any event, I'm against torture and attacking non-miliary or governmental personnel.

My comment about training in the US, is that that would fit the analogy with Iraq; they have trained al Qaeda in Iraq. The Sandinistas seem to have been trained mostly in Honduras. If Nicaragua attacked Honduras to wipe out the training camps, that would be similar to a US attack on Iraq.

[section9]

Your claim (both parts) can be disputed, however that is a moot point. The only country to have used nuclear weapons against a civilian population was not run by a borderline psychotic at the time. Funnily enough, Saddam Hussein did not use chemical or biological weapons in the last Gulf War, which is remarkable considering he was losing the war.

Nah, you know he's a loon but you just don't want to admit it. It might weaken your argument.

Saddam was told in the last war what would happen to him if he did use WMD on us. Then, he figured out that we weren't marching on Baghdad after all, so he put his goodies away for a rainy day.

As to Harry Truman; if I were in his position and had to forestall a landing in Japan, knowing how hard the Japanese fought at Saipan, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima, I would have used the bomb, too. Stating that Harry Truman used WMD on a civilian population does nothing to advance your central proposition that Saddam can be left alone with his toys. It's just an argumentative stunt.

The answer to this riddle is simple: Saddam Hussein may be crazy, but he is not suicidal. He knows exactly that using WMDs will only get him killed. That is why Hussein can easily be contained. And that is why he is to a certain degree cooperating with the UN inspectors.

Credulity will get you killed. If he were cooperating at all, he would have handed over the bad stuff. He's not, because the survival of the regime depends on holding on to those weapons.

Asserting that Hussein can be contained is laughable. Your causation is as follows.

MAJOR ASSUMPTION: Hussein is only interested in personal survival.

MAJOR ASSUMPTION: Hussein does not want to use WMD for fear of retaliation.

CONCLUSION: Hussein can be contained.

The fly in that ointment is that Hussein has, throughout the nineties, continued stockpiling VX, other nerve agents, and bioweapons as if they were going out of style. He also continues to research nuclear weapons.

Once he achieves nuclear weapons deployment, containment fails. Saddam can then hand a bomb over to a cutout, such as Al Qaeda, and sit back and watch the fun. You want to take those kind of risks with one of our cities? Thanks, but no thanks.

Nuclear weapons don't respect borders. Neither do terrorists.

On the other hand, North Korea is trying very hard to appear as insane as possible. It has even threatened preemptive strikes against South Korea. The reaction of the US administration is telling -- obviously North Korea can be dealt with diplomatically, very much unlike Iraq.

North Korea is uniquely dependent on China. That's one lever right there.

For the time being, it can be dealt with diplomatically. We do so because we have chosen, and properly so, to remain concentrated on the task at hand.

Thankfully, the Administration understands the Big Talk out of Pyongyang for what it is: a bluff by a group of thugs holding a very bad poker hand.

No more money for Little Kim.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[conservativemusician]

Scott Ritter , in 1998, was convinced Iraq had the proscribed weapons systems( VX, sarin, nuclear, and the like). Four years after the UN inspectors left Iraq, he reverses his position most vociferously. In the intervening years, it has come to light, he was paid 400,000 dollars by the Iraqi government to advise on a film produced by the Iraqis. I would say that alone calls into question his credibility.