I don't see much debate actually. You just insist, with whatever rock comes to hand, that even though Iraq was defeated decisively, we could not have ousted Saddam. And that the reason for this lies anywhere but with the commander in chief. It'd look like a massive goof except that he had to promise this to get Arab support -- it really wasn't an option, unfortunately. It might have helped things along over the last decade.

BTW, the Fox story also says "U.S. Central Command, which oversees the war in Iraq, said in a statement that troops were examining several "sites of interest," but said it was premature to call the Najaf site a chemical weapons factory." You know, the guy there is bad and who the hell said he wasn't? The real question the war is why did Bush botch the approach to it so badly, putting the US on the outs with so many people? Whatever the reason for that, it's done and it's too bad.

Oh, and just in case you all missed it, I'm sure Saddam was JUST ABOUT TO DECLARE this to the inspectors....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81935,00.html

"A senior pentagon official has confirmed to Fox News on Sunday that coalition forces have discovered a "huge" chemical weapons factory near the Iraqi city of An Najaf, which is situated some 225 miles south of Baghdad.

Coalition troops are also said to be holding the general in charge of the facility.

The Jerusalem Post ran a story earlier Sunday that was written by an journalist on-hand with the U.S. unit -- the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division - that took the plant.

The article states that one soldier was lightly wounded when a booby-trapped explosive was triggered as he was "clearing the sheet metal-lined chemical weapons production facility."

The chemical plant is described as a "100-acre complex," surrounded by an electrical fence. The plant was also apparently camouflaged to avoid aerial photos being taken."



So, for all you folks supporting MORE inspections, why hasn't this immense facility been found, inspected and destroyed??

In a country the size of CALIFORNIA (larger than CA, actually...) it's easy to hide a 100-ACRE complex if you want to.

I think in the next few weeks we'll see just how far away Saddam REALLY was from compliance with UN Resolution 1441...

"Legal mumbo-jumbo doesn't fool everyone as easily as you, I guess."

THE DEFINITION OF ASSASINATION IS LEGAL MUMBO-JUMBO!!!

I said Assasinations were outlawed, you point out several incidents that DID NOT meet the legal definition. How does this mean I was "FOOLED"?!?

Your debate style is, well, hard to get a handle of. It's a mix of non-sequitors, straw men and red herrings. In short: All fluff and no substance.


The "Legal mumbo-jumbo" is VERY important. As I mentioned, bombing a building is am INEFFECTIVE way to get a kill on a specific individual. A .308 bullet to the head is a VERY effective way to kill an individual. The fact that the president can ONLY use bombs means that's what he's going to use. If he COULD authorize covert sniper assasinations I'm CERTAIN he would.

Saying that the legal distinction between the two is insignificant shows that you don't understand the situation at all.

Please stop, it's obvious you don't understand, and won't, because you are either PLAYING dumb or truly are, either way I don't have the patience for it. Dan Z and others can follow along in a real discussion, so I have to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are simply trying to derail the debate instead of add anything of substance.

"So Bush is President of Iraq, then?"

Oh yeah, Saddam is an entirely legit leader - he was elected with 99.9% of the vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by author 03-23-2003 04:44 PM
QrazyQuat, those were NOT considered assasination attempts, according to what was outlawed.

Legal mumbo-jumbo doesn't fool everyone as easily as you, I guess.

Of course, this business re assasinations started when you unaccountably connected the idea of ousting Saddam after the first Gulf War with the idea of assasination -- of course they are not related.

The fact of the matter is - we can sit here and post our views til the cows come home but only ONE voice matters:

That of the Iraqi people.

So Bush is President of Iraq, then?

Sorry so snarky. Wish I had more time. Maybe later.

QrazyQuat, those were NOT considered assasination attempts, according to what was outlawed. Bombing buildings where the leaders and other command and control facilities makes them VIABLE targets and therefore NOT considered assasination. These strikes are also 100X LESS LIKELY to successfully achieve the goal of killing a single individual.

It's one of those distinctions that can be manipulated to a certain degree. If, however, we activated sleepers and had them put a .308 bullet in his head it would cause MAJOR problems polically, but dropping a 2000lb bomb on a building he's suspected to be in is considered fair...

I think it's all stupid. It's OK for us to risk 1000's of lives to kill someone, but NOT OK for us to send in a lone sniper. Then again, I'm not congress, so my opinion doesn't really count.

Yes, those raids you mentioned were attempts to kill a single person, but the fact that they were carried out by bombers instead of snipers made them legal.

Hey, I didn't make the rules here, but since we have to play by them I don't see many other options.

Edited by author 03-23-2003 02:05 PM
QrazyQat, assassination attempts have hardly been used as many times as you have stated.

Reagan: attempt on Ghaddafi. Killed his daughter.
Bush 1 and 2: attempts on Saddam. didn't work first time, probably not second time.
Clinton: attempt on Milosevic -- hit his bedroom but Milosevic wasn't there.

These are the ones I'm familiar with after LBJ's time. I don't know if Nixon did any (he did everything else) but I don't remember any assasination attempts offhand.

The fact of the matter is - we can sit here and post our views til the cows come home but only ONE voice matters:

That of the Iraqi people.

their voices are starting to be heard and they make you peace activists look like a bunch of buffoons!

Here's one from the staunchly antiwar Guardian:
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,919642,00.html

and here's two more:
I WAS A NAIVE FOOL TO BE A HUMAN SHIELD FOR SADDAM
By Daniel Pepper -- telegraph.co.uk
I wanted to join the human shields in Baghdad because it was direct action which had a chance of bringing the anti-war movement to the forefront of world attention. It was inspiring: the human shield volunteers were making a sacrifice for their political views - much more of a personal investment than going to a demonstration in Washington or London. It was simple - you get on the bus and you represent yourself.
So that is exactly what I did on the morning of Saturday, January 25. I am a 23-year-old Jewish-American photographer living in Islington, north London. I had travelled in the Middle East before: as a student, I went to the Palestinian West Bank during the intifada. I also went to Afghanistan as a photographer for Newsweek.
The human shields appealed to my anti-war stance, but by the time I had left Baghdad five weeks later my views had changed drastically. I wouldn't say that I was exactly pro-war - no, I am ambivalent - but I have a strong desire to see Saddam removed.
We on the bus felt that we were sympathetic to the views of the Iraqi civilians, even though we didn't actually know any. The group was less interested in standing up for their rights than protesting against the US and UK governments.
I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad - a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, "Bush bad, war bad, Iraq good". He looked at me with an expression of incredulity.
As he realised I was serious, he slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of Saddam's regime. Until then I had only heard the President spoken of with respect, but now this guy was telling me how all of Iraq's oil money went into Saddam's pocket and that if you opposed him politically he would kill your whole family.
It scared the hell out of me. First I was thinking that maybe it was the secret police trying to trick me but later I got the impression that he wanted me to help him escape. I felt so bad. I told him: "Listen, I am just a schmuck from the United States, I am not with the UN, I'm not with the CIA - I just can't help you."
Of course I had read reports that Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein, but this was the real thing. Someone had explained it to me face to face. I told a few journalists who I knew. They said that this sort of thing often happened - spontaneous, emotional, and secretive outbursts imploring visitors to free them from Saddam's tyrannical Iraq.
I became increasingly concerned about the way the Iraqi regime was restricting the movement of the shields, so a few days later I left Baghdad for Jordan by taxi with five others. Once over the border we felt comfortable enough to ask our driver what he felt about the regime and the threat of an aerial bombardment.
"Don't you listen to Powell on Voice of America radio?" he said. "Of course the Americans don't want to bomb civilians. They want to bomb government and Saddam's palaces. We want America to bomb Saddam."
We just sat, listening, our mouths open wide. Jake, one of the others, just kept saying, "Oh my God" as the driver described the horrors of the regime. Jake was so shocked at how naive he had been. We all were. It hadn't occurred to anyone that the Iraqis might actually be pro-war.
The driver's most emphatic statement was: "All Iraqi people want this war." He seemed convinced that civilian casualties would be small; he had such enormous faith in the American war machine to follow through on its promises. Certainly more faith than any of us had.
Perhaps the most crushing thing we learned was that most ordinary Iraqis thought Saddam Hussein had paid us to come to protest in Iraq. Although we explained that this was categorically not the case, I don't think he believed us. Later he asked me: "Really, how much did Saddam pay you to come?"
It hit me on visceral and emotional levels: this was a real portrayal of Iraq life. After the first conversation, I completely rethought my view of the Iraqi situation. My understanding changed on intellectual, emotional, psychological levels. I remembered the experience of seeing Saddam's egomaniacal portraits everywhere for the past two weeks and tried to place myself in the shoes of someone who had been subjected to seeing them every day for the last 20 or so years.
Last Thursday night I went to photograph the anti-war rally in Parliament Square. Thousands of people were shouting "No war" but without thinking about the implications for Iraqis. Some of them were drinking, dancing to Samba music and sparring with the police. It was as if the protesters were talking about a different country where the ruling government is perfectly acceptable. It really upset me.
Anyone with half a brain must see that Saddam has to be taken out. It is extraordinarily ironic that the anti-war protesters are marching to defend a government which stops its people exercising that freedom.

DO AS I DID: AN OPEN LETTER TO SADDAM HUSSEIN'S GENERALS
By Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa
I appeal to you, the generals of Iraq's Republican Guard, to follow my example and turn your arms against your country's tyrant. I can assure you that you will never regret taking that step.
History repeats itself, and if you can live two lives, you have a chance of seeing that repetition with your own eyes. In my other life, I also served a terrorist dictator, who had transformed his country into a monument to himself and created his own dynasty. Nicolae Ceausescu was a Romanian Saddam, who starved his people to build palaces for himself and spent the country's wealth to produce weapons of mass destruction in order to fulfill his megalomaniacal dreams. Like you, I held a high position at the top of my country's society, when I broke with Ceausescu: a two-star general, personal adviser to the president, acting chief of his espionage service, and state secretary in his ministry of interior. Like you, I also lived a privileged life in the dictator's entourage, in which every material need was generously provided by the government. But eventually, the prospect of being judged by history as an accomplice of one of the world's most despicable dictators convinced me to give up everything.
Now, at this historic moment for your country, I call upon you, my fellow generals, to follow in my footsteps, and I assure you, you will never regret it. On July 28, 1978, when I made my break, I was exactly three months short of the round age of fifty, and I have never looked back. I knew that it would not be easy starting my life over from scratch with no tangible possessions but the clothes on my back, but the anticipation of finally being a free man and living in a free society was irresistible. Today I have a marvelous new life, and my native Romania is becoming a flourishing democracy. I am proud that I have done what I could to help Romania cast off the evils of its past and make its way into the modern world.
My fellow generals, do as I did. Break away from your tyrannical dictator before it is too late. Expose his crimes against humanity to the world, as I have done with those committed by Ceausescu. Catch your fugitive tyrant, as my fellow Romanian generals caught Ceausescu in December 1989, when he went into hiding in an attempt to escape the revolutionary wave sweeping Communist dictators off the face of Eastern Europe. Make Saddam pay for his crimes, as Ceausescu did for his — with his life.
Like Romania, Iraq has an ancient and proud history and culture. Both countries were conquered by the Ottoman Empire, both became honorable kingdoms, and both were in the last century taken over by despicable dictators. Join the coalition forces fighting Saddam Hussein, and you will also enjoy an honored place in your country's history.
— Ion Mihai Pacepa is the former head on Romanian Intelligence and the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the Soviet bloc. He is currently finishing a new book, Red Roots: The Origins Of Today's Anti-Americanism.

Lovegravy,
they are going to hold their hands over their ears and eyes and play argument "ping pong" with you.

QrazyQat, assassination attempts have hardly been used as many times as you have stated. The reason they haven't (and the reason they weren't successful when they were) is because our policy regarding soldiers doesn't work with assassinations. All soldiers must have an escape route from a military action. That has ALWAYS been the doctrine. The first rule of assassination is to kill the assassin or leave him to be killed.

Thats the kind of death plan that a militant Islamic organization would implement. You know like the ones who blew up the car bomb that killed the Australian news crew in Iraq yesterday. Oh wait, i forgot - saddam doesn't have ties to ANY violent Islamic groups.

Uh huh.

Next you guys are going to be citing Scott Ritter's views on the situation.

Edited by author 03-22-2003 12:19 PM
Dan Z,

First off, thanks for posting viable alternatives, even though the French have actually prevented them from actually being viable. It shows that you have actually studied the situation.

Second, a note about "inspections", coercive or otherwise:

Iraq is a body larger than the state of California. One U-Haul full of Chemical weapons could wipe out a town, or one nuke the size of a van (Saddam was working on minituarizing it so it would fit on a missile when the Israelis bombed their enrichment site and inspectors forced their sites to move and hide) is a MAJOR threat. Do you think that YOU could find a place in ALL OF CALIFORNIA to hide that UHaul where it couldn't be found? It could be under a pile of cars in a junkyard, or in your own basement, but the INspectors only have 60-100 people in the ENTIRE STATE of California to find it.... Now figure that a SINGLE VIAL of Anthrax the size of your thumb can be bred into a TON of Anthax in about a week. Can you hide a vial that small in the entire State of California so that 60 people looking for it cannot find it?

Inspectors were SUPPOSED to be just that: Inspectors. NOT detectives.

Saddam was supposed to declare ALL of his WMD's in 1992, and the inspectors job was to go to those sites that Saddam declared and tag and destroy those weapons. The inspectors started showing up and NOTHING was there... Suddenly their roles shifted to something that they weren't SUPPOSED to be, which is detectives. If Saddam was forthcoming, the inspections would have been completed in 1993, but since Saddam was hiding and lying, their job took over 12 years with little results. Now, that's ONLY going on what Saddam DECLARED in 1992! Do you REALLY think he declared EVERYTHING? We could only find and oversee destruction of about 2/3 of what he DECLARED, and assuming he didn't have more, or build more in the past 12 YEARS, is a tad naieve.

Even sending in an entire ARMY to find and destroy all the WMDs isn't sufficient. I'm SURE Saddam has some of his weapons hidden in Syria, UAE, Qatar, Somalia, Libya, etc. I mean he had 12 YEARS to move/hide them, how dumb would he have to be to keep them where they could be found?

The answer is to remove the person that would USE them. If he had 100,000 WMDs it wouldnt matter if the person in control of them was not the violent, sociopathic dictator that would actually use them.

Think of it like this: We have found a mass murderer, so instead of throwing him in jail, we instead we go into his house and destroy all of the knives and guns and let him go... Not the best way of dealing with it in my eyes.

Inspections could ONLY work if Saddam was OPEN and HONEST about his stockpile. He's lied so many times that it's crystal clear that he's NOT telling the truth. Even Blix admits it (see my post below), and without Saddam telling them what he has and where, even 10,000 inspectors and 100 years won't disarm him properly.

Edited by author 03-22-2003 12:02 PM
"And I'm saying that if the foreign service and intelligence services say that Bush's approach to this war has been disasterous and will do us long-term damage, we should take notice and heed their advice. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't."

Again, NO suggestions from you. If you aren't going to state ANY alternatives then I'm done trying to discuss this with you.


Dan Z:

Both of your alternatives involve the threat of force, which the FRENCH and RUSSIANS said EXPLICITLY that they would VETO. Those are EXACTLY the type of resolutions that 1441 SHOULD have been, but with the French promising to veto ANY resolution that includes the use of force as a penalty, these would NOT have been approved. These are the types of resolutions that Bush WANTED, but the French made if VERY clear that they would veto them. Since the UN would not be able to pass any resolutions that had teeth, Bush was forced to build a coalition of his own and go around the UN. Remember, right before his "48 hour deadline" he and the British were going to propose a 30 day deadline for FULL inspections or war begins, and the French said, WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY, that they will veto it since it threatens force. That has the UN's hands 100% tied behind their back, exposing a fatal flaw in the system and reducing the UN Sec Council to a debate forum rather than an effective legislative body.


"I'm curious: why do you think so many people in so many countries oppose this war? What exactly is it that they're protesting, in your eyes?"

Simple: It's the FIRST preemptive war we've fought. WWII we waited for Japan to bomb us, the Gulf War we had Iraq invading Kuwait, etc. There are certain conditions that people see as JUSTIFIED for war:

1. Direct attack against your country.
2. Direct attack against an ally.

That's about it. Think about applying that policy to other things, like police work. If a man in a mask comes into your house and puts a gun to your head, the Police couldn't do anything until the robber PULLS THE TRIGGER. It's like those innefecctive stalking laws (that have since been changed) that allows a stalker to follow you, threaten your life, but the police cannot do anything until they actually try to kill you. We saw the idiocy of those laws and changed them, and we are finally coming around to do the same with military doctrine.

The Hawks, lead by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, started pushing after 911 to change military doctrine so that the US doesn't have to wait for an attack to strike first (actually, Wolfowitz wrote the new doctrine under Bush Sr. but it was shelved when it got leaked to the press and Bush Sr. re-wrote it into a "Containment" doctrine instead). This new doctrine of preemption is tough to swallow for many, but the world has changed. This isn't the chivalrous days where armies would announce their intentions in advance, these are times were planes are being flown into buildings and the enemy hides everywhere. Because of this, when a threat exists, the US is justified in using force to eliminate the threat before it can act. If this doctrine was in place in 1938 we could have saved a LOT of problems.

The rest of the world isn't under as direct of a threat as the US is. After 9/11 we now have, for the FIRST TIME in our history, a terrorist group willing to carry out MASSIVE attacks on US soil. Just using airplanes they killed THOUSANDS, and some of the terrorists were learning to fly cropdusters, meanwhile Saddam is amassing chem/bio weapons... That's too much to let stand.

France, Germany, Russia and China have too much of an economic interest in Saddam's regime to support a war. Iraq owes Russia BILLIONS for weapons purchased during the war with Iran, plus all of the oil rights deals that are being cut with these nations. France is brokering missile deals through Syria to supply Iraq with Chinese missiles. Chirac is VERY DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to getting a no confidence vote, his economy is in shambles, and he cannot afford either a war OR to lose the revenue from Saddam. Because of close ties with France, China, Russia and Germany, other countries are waffling, PLUS this threat is mainly against the US (Saddam only stated that the US and Israel are his main targets) so, like the US in 1939, they are saying "It's not my problem". The world is in a recession and wars are expensive.

The US is protecting our own safety, and just because other countries want to "wait and see" if Saddam will give his WMD's to terrorists doesn't me we should. Quite frankly, liberating the people of Iraq is a side benefit. They are good people and I hope they are safe, but internal affairs aren't something I'm gung-ho about the US going to resolve, but Saddams desire to build and use WMDs is enough for me.

DanZ, I WISH those options you mentioned would have passed. I wish war could have been avoided. But since France and Russia said they would veto ANY AND ALL resolutions that included the use of force against Iraq, there was little hope of any resolutions having teeth. Those options WILL NOT WORK unilaterally, becuase without UN legitimacy they are akin to a US occupation of Iraq and would immediately lead to war (Saddam would not let US troops occupy without a fight, and without us taking out C&C plus defense sites we'd be sitting ducks!), so if there is to be war, we need it to be on OUR terms. Therefore our only choices were inaction or war. Sanctions don't work when only one country participates, but war does.

I hope the loss of innocent life is mimimal, and I hope that a liberated Iraq is a better place than an Iraq under Saddam. I KNOW I'll feel much safer knowing that the chem/bio weapons have been FINALLY destroyed or at least are under the control of a non-Stalinist regime that is bent on wiping out the US.

Preemption is a major change in US military doctorine, but I feel it's necessary when the "Smoking gun" that most people want to wait for is going to be an irradiated crater in the middle of NYC.

Edited by author 03-22-2003 12:08 AM
LoveGravy:

Here's two ways other than war: coercive inspections, and the so-called Plan C from a former U.S. Defense Dept. analyst. Whether you agree with either of them, your lack of referencing them seems to show that you haven't looked very hard.

There is also the obvious possibility that 6 months more of diplomacy and pressure would have moved France and/or Germany from their current positions, taken largely in response to Bush's arrogant and completely tactless approach to the situation, and not to the goals of the policy itself.

I'm curious: why do you think so many people in so many countries oppose this war? What exactly is it that they're protesting, in your eyes?

Again, your ignorance is showing: The US has attempted to assassinate foreign leaders under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. Perhaps surprisingly, none of these attempts have been sucessful.

And I'm saying that if the foreign service and intelligence services say that Bush's approach to this war has been disasterous and will do us long-term damage, we should take notice and heed their advice. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't.

Edited by author 03-21-2003 11:19 PM
Just to make this perfectly clear:

My assertion is that WAR is the ONLY way to oust Saddam.

Your assertion must either be:

1. There's another way (if so let me hear it)
or
2. Saddam is fine where he is.


Let's leave Bush Sr. out of this. Let's also leave Clinton out of it since he did NOTHING to rectify the situation and he didn't go after Osama after he blew up barracks and bombed the Cole...

Which of the above assertions is yours?


Oh, and I think our promise to the Saudis was:

1. We wouldn't DIRECTLY go after Saddam personally(a promise to CONGRESS as much as to the Saudis, since assinations were outlawed under Johnson)
2. We wouldn't OCCUPY Iraq.

Other than that, Saudis were SCREAMING for us to move in because they, like us, felt that Saddam was planning a sharp right turn into Saudi Arabia, giving him the #1 and #2 largest oil wells which pump the money he DESPARATELY needed after his 10 years of war with Iran...

Edited by author 03-21-2003 11:12 PM
"Bush had to make a promise to Arabs such as the Saudis that Saddam would stay in power. Your posts ignore this and therefore really don't make a lot of sense. Apparently you aren't particularly interested in them making any sense. OK. Wail away."

No, it's just that it is NOT RELEVANT. Plus, show me where Bush PROMISED that there won't be an internal revolution? He didn't?!? I'm surprised...

Ok, for the sake of argument, EVERYTHING you say is 100% right, I agree with it, you the man!!

Now, what does that have to do with where we are now? (hint: nothing)

Bush had to make a promise to Arabs such as the Saudis that Saddam would stay in power. Your posts ignore this and therefore really don't make a lot of sense. Apparently you aren't particularly interested in them making any sense. OK. Wail away.

Edited by author 03-21-2003 11:10 PM
"You're saying that Bush Sr. had Saddam at a point where we could dictate terms, as we did, yet didn't insist on his ouster because Bush thought he would keel over afterward? Wow. That's really stupid."

Um... NO. The DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS wouldn't allow it. Remember, the Congress VOTES on whether we go to war or not, and Bush Sr could NEVER get approval to go into Baghdad. The "Road of Death" into Basra was hitting the TV and the American people were getting squeamish. Going into Baghdad was NEVER on the table, it's how far would we chase the enemy troops. Once the ROad of Death was on TV, Congress got wind that their constituancy was getting squeamish and wouldn't have allowed any more war.


OK, so let me get this straight:

Since Bush Sr. MISTAKENLY (for the sake of argument) allowed Saddam to stay in power, we are doomed to leave him there!?! PLUS the "HIGHLY PAID Intelligence community" that you are saying that Bush Jr should listen to ADVISED BUSH SR. TO PULL OUT!


"Our behavior with Iraqi insurgents after, asking them to rise up and then letting them get slaughtered, is really bad. "

Once again, for the sake of argument I'll agree with EVERYTHING you say. How does that impact the situation TODAY? Are you saying "Bush Sr. made a mistake, so now we have to live with it"?!? Your argument about whether Bush Sr. went far enough is irrelevant anyway, all that matters is that Saddam IS in power and he IS a threat.

Nice straw man, but it's not relavent.

You're saying that Bush Sr. had Saddam at a point where we could dictate terms, as we did, yet didn't insist on his ouster because Bush thought he would keel over afterward? Wow. That's really stupid. When you've got the guy on the canvas, as we did, you don't leave him in power (unless you're incredibly stupid) unless you have a deal in place (as Bush Sr. did) with Arabs like the Saudis about not taking the guy out. (This was a sore point with Arab governments, and for that matter, still is.)

Our behavior with Iraqi insurgents after, asking them to rise up and then letting them get slaughtered, is really bad. Nothing new, sadly, but really bad. We should stop doing that.

Oh, and Bush Sr. didn't go into Baghdad for another reason too: He thought Saddam's regime would topple.

All the "Highly paid intelligence community" (ahem...) members told him that Saddam's regime would fall all on its own. Bush wanted to limit the loss of life and took the advice and pulled out.

The BIG MISTAKE was when Schwartzkopf allowed the Iraqis to continue to fly their gunships. If he didn't they might not have been able to quell the Shiite uprisings and Saddam may have fallen. Hindsight is 20/20, so just because a mistake was made doesn't me we should go fix it. Or are you suggesting that once a mistake is made it should be left to stand indefinately?

Bush (and the Intelligence community) underestimated Saddam's grip on his military and on his country. They underestimated the FEAR his officers feel that keeps them loyal. A mistake, no doubt, but not one that we must let stand forever.

We also abandoned the Kurds when they tried to revolt, costing thousands of Kurdish lives. The CIA failed, abandoning plans and leaving field agents to take the blame. A mistake? Sure, in hindsight, but if the Kurdish uprising would have succeeded noone would have thought it a mistake. It's easy to be an armchair quarterback when you're watching an instant-replay.

Sanctions, negotiations, etc mean NOTHING to a man willing to kill his own people to expand his power. Sometimes a military move is needed, and if we EVER want Saddam out, we'll have to use the military.

"How about the suggestions of his foriegn service and the intelligence community? That's what they get paid the big bucks for. Even the Washington Times, the rightwing Moonie paper that loves both Bushes, has quoted sources there as saying that Bush Jr. did a rotten job and essentially blew it."

Once again, not a single suggestion. Criticism, but no suggestions.

Intelligence community? Oh, you mean the one that told him to strike the HQ building with Tomahawks at the start of this war? Yeah, sounds like they wanted to wait it out...


Please tell me how Bush "Blew it". I know, general things like "He didn't build a coalition", etc. but that doesn't mean squat. WE (the US) feel like Saddam, once he has NUKES, will use them against us, and will supply terrorists with chemical agents. Now, how did we get that idea? Could be when Saddam said his GOAL was to "Drive the (Americans and Jews) into the sea". I don't particularly want to wait and see if he means it or not.

Again, read Saddam's autobiography. Once you see his rise to power as a hitman, then his position as lead torturer for the government, then the bloody coup where he finally became leader where he had his long-time friends assasinated (all facts that Saddam isn't shy about) I think you'll have a better idea about who this guy is.


So it comes down to this:

Is the world better WITH Saddam in power in Iraq or not?

If the answer is "NOT", then it comes down to HOW. Here's a guy that ONLY understands violence, isn't afraid to sacrifice his OWN PEOPLE, has been developing nukes and other WMDs since the mid-80's and has been lying to the UN since the early 90's and has stated he wants to destroy the US. Do we give him more time and hope he comes to his senses? Or do we fight?

If not now, WHEN is war justified? Only after he NUKES us? After he ignores his 18th UN mandate? Where would you draw the line?

Bush Sr. didn't go into Baghdad because he had to promise not to in order to get Arab support, in particular the Saudis. So he couldn't take out Saddam. But he could've gotten some better controls after Iraq was beaten, because the Iraqis were of course utterly beaten (as you would expect when a relatively small force goes up against the by far largest military force in the world). The US did at one time tell the Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam, but when they tried, they were slaughtered even though US troops were not far away. Saddam might have had a harder time slaughtering them too if Bush Sr. and crew had taken away his helicopter flying permission, but that seems to have slipped their minds. Oops, sorry Kurds.

You want suggestions? How about the suggestions of his foriegn service and the intelligence community? That's what they get paid the big bucks for. Even the Washington Times, the rightwing Moonie paper that loves both Bushes, has quoted sources there as saying that Bush Jr. did a rotten job and essentially blew it.

"Are you saying that he should be excused because he didn't fumble the ball any worse than his dad? I want better than that from the Prez"

Like what? Lots of criticism, not much in the way of suggestions. That’s the BIGGEST problem I have with the protesters in general, their message is “We don’t want war, but we don’t know any alternative”.

I was against war when 1441 was adopted. I think resolution 1441 was the answer, it called for “the IMMEDIATE (not in 4 months) disarming of Saddam Hussein”. Saddam violated 1441, and the UN could do NOTHING.

France has stated that they will veto ANY resolution that lists military action as a penalty. Think about that for a second. What on Earth could the UN POSSIBLY threaten Saddam with if France won’t approve any penalties!? More SANCTIONS? 12 years of sanctions did nothing. France TOTALLY undercut ANY power the UN had, which is why Bush never went back to the UN, since all that would do is force France to veto the resolution and really screw up French-US relations, so why do it?

I’m interested in hearing what YOU think should have been done. Threats with no intention of backing them up with action doesn’t work.

Seems to me there were at least two reasons for Sr. not taking down Hussein in '91. I'm sure there're more. One, since this was the first large-scale military action since Nam, Powell and Stormin' Norman were explicit about the US objective. Made a big deal out of it. Weren't going to step a foot beyond it, and didn't. Two, at the time, leaving the mad Hussein in the palace was a fine excuse for maintaining a military presence in the region. Better to help the Kurds/Iraqis overthrow him (they didn't) and generally to watch over stuff. Like Iran.

Edited by author 03-21-2003 06:27 PM
"I wish you all were cops, so I'd never get another speeding ticket ever again."

If I were making the laws, speeding per se wouldn't be against the law, but unsafe driving would get your license suspended. If I were a cop, I'd have to uphold the laws.

Now about your ascertion that Bush Sr. should've cleaned up the Iraq mess back in the early 90s -- I agree, he should've instituted harsher controls when he had the guy on the canvas. But he didn't. How exactly does that excuse his son from his hopeless bumbling in the approach to saddam this time? Are you saying that he should be excused because he didn't fumble the ball any worse than his dad? I want better than that from the Prez.

"Iraq told U.N. inspectors in its December weapons declaration, a copy of which was shown to an Associated Press reporter, that it no longer had the Scud missiles it used against Iran in the 1980s and against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel during the 1991 gulf war."

OOPS! Oh well, he lied this ONE time, I'm sure he's telling the truth about the chemical weapons and his nuclear capabilities....

Just to finish my point here, since Blix's statement left some doubt as to whether they were Scud's, they have since been CONFIRMED:


"THE missiles fired at northern Kuwait were banned Scuds, it was confirmed last night.

Saddam Hussein had always denied to UN weapons inspectors that he had remaining supplies of the crude missiles, used extensively during the 1991 Gulf War.

He was banned from having them because their range of about 400 miles was well over the 93 miles permitted under the 1991 surrender.

Iraq had more than 800 of them after the war ended, but claimed all but two had been destroyed.

However, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, who headed the latest effort to find Iraq's banned armaments, told the Security Council this month it was "questionable" whether the Iraqis really had destroyed all of their Scuds.

He estimated about 50 Scud warheads were unaccounted for.

Last night, US officers in the Kuwait desert claimed one of the missiles might have been an Al Samoud 2, also banned under the weapons agreement.

Blix ordered the Al Samoud 2 missiles destroyed after the Iraqis reported that, in test flights, they had flown slightly further than the 93-mile limit.

Some were destroyed before the weapons inspectors were forced by the impending war to leave Iraq."



12 years of inspections and this is what we get. Wonderful. And the guy HEADING UP THE INSPECTIONS doubt that more inspections would have worked, yet you all still yell for more time.

I wish you all were cops, so I'd never get another speeding ticket ever again.

Edited by author 03-21-2003 04:25 PM
OK, here's another view of his statements, with quotes but still left off a bit of it. In the interview Blix talked about how the inspector's job was IMPOSSIBLE if Saddam decided to lie and cheat, but this still proves my point:

March 21, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix yesterday said Iraq violated its agreement with the United Nations if the missiles it fired at American troops were Scuds.

"I'm very interested to know whether they used Scuds," Blix said in an interview with the Fox News Channel. "If they're firing [Scuds], of course that shows that there's a violation," he said.

Blix told the U.N. Security Council this month that it was "questionable" whether the Iraqis had destroyed all of their Scuds and that about 50 Scud warheads were still unaccounted for.

Even though he wanted more time for inspections, Blix said yesterday that he didn't know if he could ever be sure that Iraq wasn't hiding the illegal missiles.

"I could not guarantee that we would come to clear conclusions even after some months more," he said.

Blix also said he doubted Iraq would use chemical or biological weapons against U.S. troops - even if it had them.

"If they were to use chemicals or any prohibited weapon, then the whole world opinion, I think, would turn against them immediately," he said.

"Blix did not say that, but then you knew that."

I was paraphrasing. He was interviewed last night and ON CAMERA he said that the SCUD missile launch was a DIRECT violation of 1441 and that Saddam claimed that he had none. Blix admitted that the inspections would likely not have ever disarmed him because he was not being HONEST.

The INPECTORS, were supposed to INSPECT the sites that Saddam declared. They were NOT supposed to be DETECTIVES, which is EXACTLY what they became after they knew that Saddam was lying to them back in 1992. Their goal was to go to the sites that Saddam declared, tag the arms, and verify that they have been destroyed. They were NEVER supposed to be detectives....

I don't listen to talk radio, nor do I watch much TV news except for the live footage because it's facinating to watch history unfold. Most of my info comes from newspapers.com and reading international papers. When I heard Blix was on I had to listen to that though.

For those of you who haven't, please find a translated copy of Saddam's autobiography. If, after reading that, you still like the guy and think he's a fine ruler for Iraq then I'll respect your opinion. His idolization of Stalin is a wonderful characterization of what type of person he is.

If you are against the war, I'm still interested in hearing your alternatives. If Blix doesn't even think more time would have helped, I'm facinated to hear how you think that more time is the answer. Or perhaps more empty threats were what we needed? The first 17 empty threats softened him up, and the 18th would have led to compliance? Please send me a ticket to the fantacyland you live in, I need a vacation.

Edited by author 03-21-2003 03:43 PM
What Cory said -- Electrolite is damned interesting reading and is doing a great job of pointing out interesting commentary on the war. (I said much the same on my blog this morning -- I don't expect to be discussing the war much, and Electrolite was on my short list for where to go for good coverage.)

LoveGravy, you seem to be taking for granted that PNH agrees with the American Prospect article he quoted at length. I'd note that he often posts viewpoints he disagrees with but finds interesting or provocative, so it wouldn't pay to assume that he agrees with everything in the article.

Blix did not say that, but then you knew that.

As for whether this should have been done a decade ago, ask Bush Sr. why it wasn't. Clinton has said he doesn't blame Bush Sr. for not carrying through on his mission of getting Saddam because he promised Arab leaders he wouldn't go on to Baghdad in exchange for their support. (Didn't you ever wonder why he didn't depose make Saddam's surrender a condition of ending that war when he had him on the canvas?)

"Powell's evidence" was the evidence Bush Jr. has been using for some months now; it isn't some private little stash held by Powell. But then you knew that.

The defector did not say Iraq had a nuclear weapon, he said that Iraq had tried but failed to get nuclear capabilities in the 80s and that their nuclear program was a shambles after Gulf War 1. But then you knew that.

But thanks for playing, and take these lovely parting gifts...

What was that Cory was saying about yammering talk-radio thrashes?

Good to know you're following the U.S./Iraqi Empathy Schedule.

Edited by author 03-21-2003 02:27 PM
Great, another blogger stating, in summary, that he's upset that Bush did the right thing and will get credit for it.

Clinton already said he would have gone after Saddam if he thought he could have gotten away with it politically, but didn't have the guts to take a stand. Bush wouldn't have had the guts either if it wasn't for 9/11 changing military policy. I guess the Dems are upset that Bush did it, with or without world support, because it's the right thing to do and he'll get credit for it. Heck, even Blix said "The fact that they have already demonstrated that they were lying by firing a SCUD shows that Saddam had no intention of disarming", and that he's sad that it came to this but without Saddam's cooperation the inspections were meaningless.

Sorry for not waiting until we were attacked so you all would have your "Smoking Gun" that you wanted so badly, but unfortunately not everyone wants to wait for carnage before stopping it.

Being against crime AND against punishment is a nice, liberal way of riding the fence in a meaningless way, but it makes for bad policy. If we didn't enforce the SEVENTEENTH ultimatum given to Iraq NOONE would have. Saddam has already launched scuds that he doesn't have (wink wink) so who wants to place your bets on how many violations we find? Heck, if his right-hand man didn't defect back in what, 1992?, we wouldn't have know that Saddam was enriching uranium and had a MASSIVE nuclear program. The Inspectors had NO IDEA and after inspecting the placed the defector told them about they found not only Anthrax breeders but a full-blown nuclear weapons program. They were SHOCKED, but just imagine what if the guy DIDN'T defect?!? Before the Gulf War the DOE folks thought Saddam was 10-15 YEARS away from getting a nuke, but the inspectors discovered (thanks to the defector, NOT their own skill) HE ALREADY HAD ONE but hadn't miniturized it enough to put it on a SCUD so he was less than 1 year away from nuclear tipped missiles.... Also, compared to what Iraq HAD, how much did he actually know about? 20%? 10%?

The blog mentions Powell's "Evidence" being shot down. Well POWELL was the one who wanted the UN support in the first place! Powell is the COUNTERBALANCE to the Hawks like Rumsfeld, and was AGAINST a unilateral invasion in the first place! After 1441 turned into a JOKE, Powell said "Screw the UN, if they won't enforce ANY of their 17 resolutions, then we'll have to do it". Powell wanted diplomacy, but the UN was so completely divided because of France, Germany, Russia and China and their oil deals with Saddam (plus France's arms deals with Saddam, and Saddam oweing Russia several $Billion for weapons) that the UN Sec Council was a bad joke. Knowing that the removal of Saddam would lead to nullifying of their development deals, of course they would block the UN resolutions. Powell saw the UN for what it was: A waste of time. Tell me ONE TIME where the UN has RESOLVED a world conflict? NEVER. NOT ONE good example. Everything that the UN touches is mired in indecision, from the Balkans to Far East the UN has been completely ineffective. The first Gulf War was Bush Sr. with the UN's blessing and was NOT organized by the security council, or initiated by it, so don't even count that. If the UN could drive POWELL away, that's TRULY a sad thing.

Glad the war FINALLY started, about 10 years too late. Lets just hope we did it in time.