Attack Iraq?

“
I’ve got to admit – I’m no military expert and my main sources of information about Iraq have been US government and the mainstream media. I thought “what better place to pose this question than on a backpacking bulletin board?”


Below are the Principles of a Just War

 A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

 A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

 A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissable objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

 A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

 The ulimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

 The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

 The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissable targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

---------------------------------------------------------

I found the following article here. Give it a read and ask yourselves if the rumored coming war with Iraq meets the above conditions for a just war.


War in October?

Room 295 of the Suffolk Law School building in downtown Boston was filled to capacity on July 23rd with peace activists, aging Cambridge hippies and assorted freaks. One of the organizers for the gathering, United For Justice With Peace Coalition, handed out green pieces of paper that read, "We will not support war, no matter what reason or rhetoric is offered by politicians or the media. War in our time and in this context is indiscriminate, a war against innocents and against children." Judging from the crowd, and from the buzz in the room, that pretty much summed things up.

The contrast presented when Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, entered the room, could not have been more disparate. There at the lectern stood this tall lantern-jawed man, every inch the twelve-year Marine Corps veteran he was, who looked and spoke just exactly like a bulldogging high school football coach. A whistle on a string around his neck would have perfected the image.

"I need to say right out front," he said minutes into his speech, "I'm a card-carrying Republican in the conservative-moderate range who voted for George W. Bush for President. I'm not here with a political agenda. I'm not here to slam Republicans. I am one."

Yet this was a lie - Scott Ritter had come to Boston with a political agenda, one that impacts every single American citizen. Ritter was in the room that night to denounce, with roaring voice and burning eyes, the coming American war in Iraq. According to Ritter, this coming war is about nothing more or less than domestic American politics, based upon speculation and rhetoric entirely divorced from fact. According to Ritter, that war is just over the horizon.

"The Third Marine Expeditionary Force in California is preparing to have 20,000 Marines deployed in the (Iraq) region for ground combat operations by mid-October," he said. "The Air Force used the vast majority of its precision-guided munitions blowing up caves in Afghanistan. Congress just passed emergency appropriations money and told Boeing company to accelerate their production of the GPS satellite kits, that go on bombs that allow them to hit targets while the planes fly away, by September 30, 2002. Why? Because the Air Force has been told to have three air expeditionary wings ready for combat operations in Iraq by mid-October."

"As a guy who was part of the first Gulf War," said Ritter, who indeed served under Schwarzkopf in that conflict, "when you deploy that much military power forward - disrupting their training cycles, disrupting their operational cycles, disrupting everything, spending a lot of money - it is very difficult to pull them back without using them."

"You got 20,000 Marines forward deployed in October," said Ritter, "you better expect war in October."

His purpose for coming to that room was straightforward: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Democrat Joe Biden, plans to call a hearing beginning on Monday, July 29th. The Committee will call forth witnesses to describe the threat posed to America by Iraq. Ritter fears that much crucial information will not be discussed in that hearing, precipitating a war authorization by Congress based on political expediency and ignorance. Scott Ritter came to that Boston classroom to exhort all there to demand of the Senators on the Committee that he be allowed to stand as a witness.

Ritter began his comments by noting the interesting times we live in after September 11th. There has been much talk of war, and much talk of war with Iraq. Ritter was careful to note that there are no good wars - as a veteran, he described war as purely awful and something not to be trivialized - but that there is such a thing as a just war. He described America as a good place, filled with potential and worth fighting for. We go to just war, he said, when our national existence has been threatened.

According to Ritter, there is no justification in fact, national security, international law or basic morality to justify this coming war with Iraq. In fact, when asked pointedly what the mid-October scheduling of this conflict has to do with the midterm Congressional elections that will follow a few weeks later, he replied, simply, "Everything."

“This is not about the security of the United States," said this card-carrying Republican while pounding the lectern. "This is about domestic American politics. The national security of the United States of America has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven political ambitions. The day we go to war for that reason is the day we have failed collectively as a nation."

Ritter was sledding up a pretty steep slope with all this. After all, Saddam Hussein has been demonized for twelve years by American politicians and the media. He gassed his own people, and America has already fought one war to keep him under control. Ritter's presence in Iraq was demanded in the first place by Hussein's pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, along with the ballistic missile technology that could deliver these weapons to all points on the compass.

According to the Bush administration, Hussein has ties to the same Al Qaeda terrorists that brought down the World Trade Center. It is certain that Hussein will use these terrorist links to deliver a lethal blow to America, using any number of the aforementioned weapons. The argument, propounded by Bush administration officials on any number of Sunday news talk shows, is that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, and the unseating of Saddam Hussein, is critical to American national security. Why wait for them to hit us first?

"If I were an American, uninformed on Iraq as we all are," said Ritter, "I would be concerned." Furthermore, continued Ritter, if an unquestionable case could be made that such weapons and terrorist connections existed, he would be all for a war in Iraq. It would be just, smart, and in the interest of national defense.

Therein lies the rub: According to Scott Ritter, who spent seven years in Iraq with the UNSCOM weapons inspection teams performing acidly detailed investigations into Iraq's weapons program, no such capability exists. Iraq simply does not have weapons of mass destruction, and does not have threatening ties to international terrorism. Therefore, no premise for a war in Iraq exists. Considering the American military lives and the Iraqi civilian lives that will be spent in such an endeavor, not to mention the deadly regional destabilization that will ensue, such a baseless war must be avoided at all costs.

"The Bush administration has provided the American public with little more than rhetorically laced speculation," said Ritter. "There has been nothing in the way of substantive fact presented that makes the case that Iraq possesses these weapons or has links to international terror, that Iraq poses a threat to the United States of America worthy of war."

Ritter regaled the crowd with stories of his time in Iraq with UNSCOM. The basis for the coming October war is the continued existence of a weapons program that threatens America. Ritter noted explicitly that Iraq, of course, had these weapons at one time - he spent seven years there tracking them down. At the outset, said Ritter, they lied about it. They failed to declare the existence of their biological and nuclear programs after the Gulf War, and declared less than 50% of their chemical and missile stockpiles. They hid everything they could, as cleverly as they could.

After the first lie, Ritter and his team refused to believe anything else they said. For the next seven years, the meticulously tracked down every bomb, every missile, every factory designed to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry. They went to Europe and found the manufacturers who sold them the equipment. They got the invoices and shoved them into the faces of Iraqi officials. They tracked the shipping of these materials and cross-referenced this data against the invoices. They lifted the foundations of buildings destroyed in the Gulf War to find wrecked research and development labs, at great risk to their lives, and used the reams of paperwork there to cross-reference what they had already cross-referenced.

Everything they found was later destroyed in place.

After a while, the Iraqis knew Ritter and his people were robotically thorough. Fearing military retaliation if they hid anything, the Iraqis instituted a policy of full disclosure. Still, Ritter believed nothing they said and tracked everything down. By the time he was finished, Ritter was mortally sure that he and his UNSCOM investigators had stripped Iraq of 90-95% of all their weapons of mass destruction.

What of the missing 10%? Is this not still a threat? Ritter believes that the ravages of the Gulf War accounted for a great deal of the missing material, as did the governmental chaos caused by sanctions. The Iraqis' policy of full disclosure, also, was of a curious nature that deserved all of Ritter's mistrust. Fearing the aforementioned attacks, Iraq instituted a policy of destroying whatever Ritter's people had not yet found, and then pretending it never existed in the first place.
Often, the dodge failed to fool UNSCOM. That some of it did also accounts for a portion of that missing 10%.

Ritter told a story about running down 98 missiles the Iraqis tried to pretend never existed. UNSCOM got hold of the documentation describing them, and demanded proof that they had, in fact, been destroyed. He was brought to a field where, according to Iraqi officials, the missiles had been blown up and then buried. At this point, Ritter and his team became "forensic archaeologists," digging up every single missile component they could find there.

After sifting through the bits and pieces to find parts bearing serial numbers, they went to Russia, who sold Iraq the weapons in the first place. They cross-referenced the serial numbers with the manufacturer's records, and confirmed the data with the shipping invoices. When finished, they had accounted for 96 of the missiles. Left over was a pile of metal with no identifying marks, which the Iraqis claimed were the other two missiles. Ritter didn't believe them, but could go no further with the investigation.

This story was telling in many ways. Americans mesmerized with stories of lying Iraqis who never told the weapons inspectors the truth about anything should take note of the fact that Ritter was led to exactly the place where the Iraqis themselves had destroyed their weapons without being ordered to. The pile of metal left over from this investigation that could not be identified means Iraq, technically, could not receive a 100% confirmation that all its weapons were destroyed. Along with the other mitigating factors described above, it seems clear that 100% compliance under the UNSCOM rules was impossible to achieve. 90-95%, however, is an impressive record.

The fact that chemical and biological weapons ever existed in the first place demands action, according to the Bush administration. After all, they could have managed to hide vast amounts of the stuff from Ritter's investigators. Iraq manufactured three kinds of these nerve agents: VX, Sarin and Tabou. Some alarmists who want war with Iraq describe 20,000 munitions filled with Sarin and Tabou nerve agents that could be used against Americans.

The facts, however, allay the fears. Sarin and Tabou have a shelf life of five years. Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from Ritter's people, what they are now storing is nothing more than useless and completely harmless goo.

The VX gas was of a greater concern to Ritter. It is harder to manufacture than the others, but once made stable, it can be kept for much longer. Ritter's people found the VX manufacturing facility that the Iraqis claimed never existed totally destroyed, hit by a Gulf War bomb on January 23, 1991. The field where the material they had manufactured was subsequently buried underwent more forensic archaeology to determine that whatever they had made had also been destroyed. All of this, again, was cross-referenced and meticulously researched.

“The research and development factory is destroyed," said Ritter. "The product of that factory is destroyed. The weapons they loaded up have been destroyed. More importantly, the equipment procured from Europe that was going to be used for their large-scale VX nerve agent factory was identified by the special commission - still packed in its crates in 1997 - and destroyed. Is there a VX nerve agent factory in Iraq today? Not on your life."

This is, in and of itself, a bold statement. Ritter himself and no weapons inspection team has set foot in Iraq since 1998. Ritter believed Iraq technically capable of restarting its weapons manufacturing capabilities within six months of his departure. That leaves some three and one half years to manufacture and weaponize all the horrors that has purportedly motivated the Bush administration to attack.

"Technically capable," however, is the important phrase here. If no one were watching, Iraq could do this. But they would have to start completely from scratch, having been deprived of all equipment, facilities and research because of Ritter's work. They would have to procure the complicated tools and technology required through front companies, which would be detected. The manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits vented gasses that would have been detected by now if they existed. The manufacture of nuclear weapons emits gamma rays that would have been detected by now if they existed. We have been watching, via satellite and other means, and we have seen none of this.

"If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof," said Ritter, "plain and simple."

And yet we march to war, and soon. A chorus of voices was raised in the room asking why we are going. What motivates this, if not hard facts and true threats? According to Ritter, it comes down to opportunistic politics and a decade of hard anti-Hussein rhetoric that has boxed the Bush administration into a rhetorical corner.

Back in 1991, the UN Security Council mandated the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Sanctions were placed upon Iraq to pressure them to comply. The first Bush administration signed on to this, but also issued a covert finding that mandated the removal of Saddam Hussein. Even if all the weapons were destroyed, Bush Sr. would not lift the sanctions until Hussein was gone.

Bush Sr., and Clinton after him, came to realize that talking about removing Hussein was far, far easier than achieving that goal. Hussein was, and remains, virtually coup-proof. No one could get close enough to put a bullet in him, and no viable intelligence existed to pinpoint his location from day to day. Rousing a complacent American populace to support the massive military engagement that would have been required to remove Hussein by force presented insurmountable political obstacles. The tough talk about confronting Hussein continued, but the Bush and Clinton administrations treaded water.

This lack of results became exponentially more complicated. Politicians began making a living off of demonizing Hussein, and lambasting Clinton for failing to have him removed. The roots of our current problem began to deepen at this point, for it became acceptable to encapsulate a nation of 20 million citizens in the visage of one man who was hated and reviled in bipartisan fashion. Before long, the American people knew the drill - Saddam is an evil threat and must be met with military force, period.

In 1998, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Iraqi Liberation Act. The weight of public American law now demanded the removal of Saddam Hussein. The American government went on to use data gathered by UNSCOM, narrowly meant to pinpoint possible areas of investigation, to choose bombing targets in an operation called Desert Fox. Confrontation, rather than resolution, continued to be the rule. By 1999, however, Hussein was still in power.

"An open letter was written to Bill Clinton in the fall of 1999," said Ritter, "condemning him for failing to fully implement the Iraqi Liberation Act. It demanded that he use the American military to facilitate the Iraqi opposition's operations inside Iraq, to put troops on the ground and move on up to Baghdad to get rid of Saddam. Who signed this letter? Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Robert Zoellick, Richard Perle, and on and on and on.”

The removal of Saddam Hussein became a plank in the GOP's race for the Presidency in 2000. After gaining office, George W. Bush was confronted with the reality that he and many within his administration had spent a great amount of political capital promising that removal. Once in power, however, he came to realize what his father and Clinton already knew - talking tough was easy, and instigating pinprick military confrontations was easy, but removing Hussein from power was not easy at all. His own rhetoric was all around him, however, pushing him into that corner which had only one exit. Still, like the two Presidents before him, he treaded water.

Then came September 11th. Within days, Bush was on television claiming that the terrorists must have had state-sponsored help, and that state sponsor must be Iraq. When the anthrax attacks came, Bush blamed Iraq again. Both times, he had no basis whatsoever in fact for his claims. The habit of lambasting Iraq, and the opportunity to escape the rhetorical box twelve years of hard-talking American policy, were too juicy to ignore.

The dearth of definitive proof of an Iraqi threat against America began to go international. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld appeared before NATO not long ago and demanded that they support America's looming Iraq war. Most of the NATO nations appeared ready to do so - they trusted that America's top defense official would not come before them and lie. But when they tried to ask questions of him about the basis for this war, Rumsfeld absolutely refused to answer any of them. Instead, he offered this regarding our utter lack of meaningful data to support a conflict: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

Scott Ritter appeared before NATO some days after this at their invitation to offer answers to their questions. Much of what he told them was mirrored in his comments in that Boston classroom. After he was finished, 16 of the 19 NATO nations present wrote letters of complaint to the American government about Rumsfeld's comments, and about our basis for war. American UN representatives boycotted this hearing, and denounced all who gave ear to Ritter.

Some have claimed that the Bush administration may hold secret evidence pointing to a threat within Iraq, one that cannot be exposed for fear of compromising a source. Ritter dismissed this out of hand in Boston. "If the administration had such secret evidence," he said, "we'd be at war in Iraq right now. We wouldn't be talking about it. It would be a fait accompli." Our immediate military action in Afghanistan, whose ties to Al Qaeda were manifest, lends great credence to this point.

Ritter dismissed oil as a motivating factor behind our coming war with Iraq. He made a good defense of this claim. Yes, Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves on earth, a juicy target for the petroleum-loving Bush administration. But the U.S. already buys some 68% of all the oil produced in Iraq. "The Navy ships in the Gulf who work to interdict the smuggling of Iraqi oil," said Ritter, "are fueled by Iraqi oil." Iraq's Oil Minister has stated on camera that if the sanctions are lifted, Iraq will do whatever it takes to see that America's oil needs are fulfilled. "You can't get a better deal than that," claimed Ritter.

His thinking on this aspect of the coming war may be in error. That sort of logic exists in an all-things-being-equal world of politics and influence, a world that has ceased to exist. Oil is a coin in the bargaining, peddled as influence to oil-state congressmen and American petroleum companies by the Iraqi National Congress to procure support for this baseless conflict. Invade, says the INC, put us in power, and you will have all you want. There are many ruling in America today, both in government and business, who would shed innocent blood for this opportunity.

Ritter made no bones about the fact that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Like most Americans, however, he detests being lied to. His work in Iraq, and his detailed understanding of the incredible technological requirements for the production of weapons of mass destruction, leads him to believe beyond question that there is no basis in fact or in the needs of national security for a war in Iraq. This Marine, this Republican who seemed so essentially hawkish that no one in that Boston classroom would have been surprised to find wings under his natty blue sportcoat, called the man he cast a Presidential vote for a liar.

"The clock is ticking," he said, "and it's ticking towards war. And it's going to be a real war. It's going to be a war that will result in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. It's a war that is going to devastate Iraq. It's a war that's going to destroy the credibility of the United States of America. I just came back from London, and I can tell you this - Tony Blair may talk a good show about war, but the British people and the bulk of the British government do not support this war. The Europeans do not support this war. NATO does not support this war. No one supports this war."

It is of a certainty that few in the Muslim world support another American war with Iraq. Osama bin Laden used the civilian suffering in Iraq under the sanctions to demonstrate to his followers the evils of America and the West. Another war would exacerbate those already-raw emotions. After 9/11, much of the Islamic world repudiated bin Laden and his actions. Another Iraq war would go a long way to proving, in the minds of many Muslims, that bin Laden was right all along. The fires of terrorism that would follow this are unimaginable.

Scott Ritter wants to be present as a witness on Monday when the Foreign Relations Committee convenes its hearing, a hearing that will decide whether or not America goes to war in Iraq. He wants to share the information he delivered in that Boston classroom with Senators who have spent too many years listening to, or propounding, rhetorical and speculative fearmongering about an Iraqi threat to America that does not exist. Instead, he wants the inspectors back in Iraq, doing their jobs. He wants to try and keep American and Iraqi blood from being spilled in a military exercise promulgated by right-wing ideologues that may serve no purpose beyond affecting the outcome of the midterm Congressional elections in November 2002.

"This is not theory," said Ritter in Boston as he closed his comments. "This is real. And the only way this war is going to be stopped is if Congress stops this war."


”

“A just war, apparently, is one that can be won.”

“Geez, I think violin just set the record for longest cut and paste.”

“Saddam would probably be "removed" by the time I read all of it!”

“Saddam, a dictator that we propped up, must now be removed from power.

Hmmmm.”

“America doesn't know what it means to lose a war. Sure, we have been involved in conflicts where we haven't been the victors, but we have not been occupied by foreign forces. That would suck. I'm sure it would get nuclear before that is ever permitted to happen.”

“It's probably easier to read if you go to the link. It's really only a 5-10 minute read and outlines how former UN weapons inspector (and card carrying republican former marine) Scott Ritter feels that we, the American public, have been lied to regarding Iraq.

Below are a few poignant quotes:

“The national security of the United States of America has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven political ambitions.”

"The Bush administration has provided the American public with little more than rhetorically laced speculation," said Ritter. "There has been nothing in the way of substantive fact presented that makes the case that Iraq possesses these weapons or has links to international terror, that Iraq poses a threat to the United States of America worthy of war."

According to Ritter, there is no justification in fact, national security, international law or basic morality to justify this coming war with Iraq. In fact, when asked pointedly what the mid-October scheduling of this conflict has to do with the midterm Congressional elections that will follow a few weeks later, he replied, simply, "Everything." ”

“Seems as tho most of the top military commanders don't want it. That and dying soldiers aren't good for a re-election attempt.

I read there are a couple of bills on the floor that would require a congressional vote before any action would be taken against Iraq.”

“i believe we had this opportunity 10 years ago and failed to take advantage of it. we don't have an opportunity now, but we want to do something. little late-- you snooze, you lose.”

“I don't have too much political comment on it, I'm just a touchy-feely sensitive girl. I think war is wrong . . . period. It's just awful and personally I've had all the sadness I can take over the wars I see on TV, hear on the radio, and read in the paper.”

“Sure..lets attack Iraq and every other country that don't tow the American line. It's going to happen sooner or later anyways.

Newgirl, we all know that war is hell (it's even worst if you're on the losing side), but to maintain our standard of living and position in the world (not just the U.S.), one have to surpress the up-and-comers.”

“Here's the big thing about an attack on Iraq in its current state:

It would be an initiatory strike.

Think about that. It would be the first time in US history that we have gone into a country that is not at war in order to make war.

Whatever side of the fence you're on, that's a sobering thought.”

“Stanlee, that is one of the problems I have w/ it. The top dog theory. I admit that I am a very non-competitive type, but I don't understand the gigantic driving force to be the bestest. And yes, I clearly understand what it would mean to our standard of living if we were not the top dog. What is nice about the top if you have to constantly be on guard for possible attack, constantly be attacking others, and in general be hated?”

“Ataq Irack??”

“Fear of Saddam telling what he knows of US past actions could be the reason.That could be a long long story.”

“I fought with the 1st Infantry Divison in 91 in the first go around with Iraq. I can understand the Bush Administration doesn't want to wait until we're attacked with weapons of mass destruction from terrorist who got there weapons from Saddam. Can you imagine what the news media would say if thousands of Americans we're killed in a new terrorist attack that was sponsered by Iraq and we did nothing to stop this?

I think and hope the Bush Administration has proof of Iraqi WMD before they get service people killed over there.

Ritter is right. Unlike the first war the second will not be a cake walk if Iraq decides to fight.

If we do not go to war with Iraq soon, they may get the bomb. If they get the bomb an invasion is not going to happen. Iraq knows this and is probably doing everything it can to get one.

If past history is a lesson the U.S. did not know of a country's quest for the bomb until they tested one.

I'm sure our government doesn't want Iraq go get the bomb and be in a position to threaten Americans or Israelis. Arab countries would rally around Iraq if this were allowed to happen and our influence in the region would be almost nil.

The U.S. wants Saddam gone. The Iraqis know this. I hope that if they know war is immanent they will take care of Saddam themselves.”

“We can only wish for that but what happens in the end is going to be a diffrent story!

8|”

“Yes! we should invade Iraq, and right now. If we wait until World Trade Center II, or worse, all you damned peace niks will be asking, why?, why did this happen to us?

Frag Saddam, now.”

“newspaper headlines....pleasure craft sails into New York harbor, below deck a Soviet surplus nuke device......film at 11:00”

“I wouldn't be surprised if SoDamn Insane already has a few nuclear/atomic bombs. I read somewhere that the Russians are missing alot of their nuclear bombs/warheads. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the newly formed countries probably sold the bombs for the much needed cash.”

“Why is it that we only attack or plan to attack countries which can offer very little resistance? China doesn't "tow the line" yet I don't see us bombing and invading them. We seem to be a little hypocritical in whom we choose to war with. Even little Somalia, which catches us with our pants down, puts up some resistence and we run home to momma with our tails tucked between our legs.

We had our chance to take care of Iraq legitimately but Bush Sr blew that one. If his son is so eager to be the big bully on the block, where was he during Vietnam?”

“Many analysts doubt that Saddam would share weapons of mass destruction with al Queda or other groups because he would not want to give up control over a source of power.”

“An attack on Iraq doesn't seem too feasible. The two most likely countries to host American troops have both opposed the war - Jordan and Turkey. The Iraqi Kurds don't want to attack Sadam; neither do the other opposition groups. Sadam has shown over and over that it's highly unlikely that the U.S. can foment a coup from within the military. This war is the most anticipated and discussed war in modern history. Sadam has had plenty of time to prepare. I read analysis that shows Sadam's air defenses will cause a fair bit of attrition on U.S. aircraft. Americans seem to lose their appetite for war when their billion dollar jets get shot down. What will an attack do to oil prices? What kind of government will be imposed on the Iraqis, and how long does the U.S. have to be there? And overthrowing Iraq will disrupt the calculus of American foreign policy for the region - that is, maintaining stability by having a moderately strong Iraq pitched against a moderately strong Iran. Also, will the U.S. be playing into al qaeda's hands if an attack causes popular uprising throughout the muslim world? Will Iraq unleash its own terrorists if attacked? Will Iraq attack Israel or Saudia Arabia? Will Iraq lob missiles at kuwaiti and saudi oil wells?”

“Buddha, peacenik this. If there is specific and credible evidence that Saddam is planning an attack on the US, then we will act on it, whatever the current debate results are. The debate has included the possibility of a future terrorist attack stemming from Iraq, but no one has brought forward any hard evidence of anything imminent. Where do we draw the line for attacking countries we feel uncomfortable with?

Gear Slut, the current state of Iraq's military may be very different than it was in '91, according to several military experts I've heard. American soldiers will die in an attack on Iraq, this much is obvious.”

“Does anyone else know that we bombed Iraq this week?

We patrol the country all the time enforcing the no fly zone. This week, some of our jets bombed a site thought to be threatening to the patrols.

For years, we would bomb them almost weekly with no reports in the American press.

This is not to say that we shouldn't invade. If Iraq is really close to getting nuclear weapons, we should invade. We have justification. Iraq violated the terms of surrender by disallowing UN inspectors. That brings us back into a state of war.

But if they aren't close, then we need to improve our intelligence and bomb all potential nuclear sites in the country. That doesn't take full scale war.”

“If we don't stop them now, they'll build poop castles, or destroy our poopl castles. I'm not sure which is worse”

“"bomb all potential nuclear sites in the country."

even if those targets are in residential areas? or around schools or hospitals et al.? And how do you get the ones buried deeply underground?”

“Gear slut is right - why don't we bomb China? After all , they're exporting the ingredients of WMD to Iraq and Iran:

From the State Department Web Page (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/12139.htm)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Press Statement
Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Washington, DC
July 24, 2002


U.S. Imposes Iran-Iraq Act and Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW) Sanctions Against Chinese and Indian Entities



On July 9, 2002, pursuant to the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992 ("Iran-Iraq Act") and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 ("Chemical Biological Weapons Sanctions Law"), the U.S. Government imposed sanctions on nine Chinese entities and one Indian individual for knowingly and materially contributing, through the transfer of goods or technology, to the efforts of Iran or Iraq to acquire chemical weapons or destabilizing numbers and types of advanced conventional weapons.

Sanctions have been imposed on the following entities under both the Iran-Iraq Act and the Chemical Biological Weapons Sanctions Law:

Jiangsu Yongli Chemicals and Technology Import and Export Corporation (Chinese company)
Q.C. Chen (Chinese citizen)
China Machinery and Equipment Import Export Corporation (Chinese company)
China National Machinery and Equipment Import Export Corporation (Chinese company)
CMEC Machinery and Electric Equipment Import and Export Company Ltd. Chinese company)
CMEC Machinery and Electrical Import Export Company, Ltd. (Chinese company)
China Machinery and Electric Equipment Import and Export Company (Chinese company)
Wha Cheong Tai Company Ltd. (Chinese company)

Sanctions have been imposed on two additional entities, under the Iran-Iraq Act only:

China Shipbuilding Trading Company (Chinese company)
Hans Raj Shiv (previously residing in India, and last believed to be in the Middle East)

The sanctions were imposed on specific named persons and entities, and do not extend or apply to the Chinese or Indian Governments. Nonproliferation is a key issue in our bilateral relationship with the People’s Republic of China, and we will continue to seek Chinese cooperation in resolving areas of concern.

Under the Iran-Iraq Act, for a period of two years, the U.S. Government shall not procure, or enter into any contract for the procurement of, any goods, services or technology from the sanctioned entities or persons, nor issue any license for any export by or to the sanctioned persons or entities.

The Chemical Biological Weapons Sanctions Law prohibits the U.S. Government from procuring any goods or services from the sanctioned entities, and prohibits the importation into the United States of any products produced by these entities. The sanctions will remain in place for a period of at least one year or until further notice.

This is the first time sanctions have been imposed under the Iran-Iraq Act since it was passed by Congress in 1992. Since 1994, under the Chemical Biological Weapons Sanctions Law, the U.S. Government has imposed sanctions on a number of foreign entities in several countries. The names of all entities that have been sanctioned under this law were publicized in the Federal Register at the time sanctions were imposed. Notice of the July 9 determination to impose sanctions against the entities will be published later this week in the Federal Register.


[End]

Released on July 24, 2002”

“Why would we want to bomb anybody? Why would we want to discuss bombing, like it is a conversational topic? I don't care if people think I am a "stupid Peace-nik" or that I say these things because I don't fully understand. I do understand, and frankly, the more knowledge I gain about the entire subject, the more vile I think it is. And, yes, vile is the word I meant to use.”

“It is sick and wrong to discuss how, why, when, where, etc. our country's troops might kill other country's troops, how we might disable their people by destroying their infrastructure, and how, eventually, we might break them down and bring them (through force) under our control. That is exactly what it is. Why should we mince words? We are discussing how to kill other people.”

“newgirl -

Answer honestly: If someone was about to kill your daughter and the only way to stop them was for you to kill him or her, would you? Would you be morally justified?”

“I make no bones about the fact that I'm a voting conservative. I'm in favor of small government, I'm anti-union (do a search, key word "communist")and believe you should keep a bigger share of your paycheck. Experience teaches us that the media is way too liberal. With that said I'd like to recommend reading... www.federalist.com”

“Hey Mutt-

You don't weigh in often but pretty good stuff above.”

“if americans think an invasion on iraq will be as surgical as the one in afghanistan, they are kidding themselves. there will be many casualties. saddam will force us to fight in cities and urban areas.

i wish bush sr. dealt with this situation properly 10 yrs. ago. we had a man of unspeakable evil on the cusp of utter defeat, and we let him go. amazing.”

“Violin, honestly, I would not think twice about it. Naturally, I would kill the other person. I feel that I would be morally justified.

Iraq has not attacked us. This is about being a top dog. This is about oil, and our other "interests."

Also, there is (in my opinion) a wide gulf between a person directly attacking me or my family and a full scale war. You can't gain anything in this way. Israel and Palenstian are perfect examples. Who is winning? They are just killing. I often wonder if there is someone who has been carefully making marks on a piece of paper over there. One for ea. Israeli death, one for ea. Palenstian death, always making sure they are even.

I understand the need to protect the country. I understand the (very human) need for revenge (like after 9/11). But, I don't think war is the way to do it. There are supposed to be these "just" war rules and international laws of decency in war and blah, blah, blah. Who the f@#$ follows rules. It is a war. It is killing lots of people.

I guess I just feel sick in my soul about this sort of thing. Maybe I am too much of a baby about it.”

“I've been trying not to get involved with this thread. The question that I think the American public needs answered is just how big a threat is Iraq? Once that question is answered the choices become more obvious. In the wake of 9/11, I don't believe Bush has made a case for Iraq being connected to terrorism. The nuclear/chemical threat has existed for some time, at least since the inspectors were shown the door. It doesn't mean Sad Sack is crazy enough to use them as he once did with the Kurds and Shiites.

But if war is necessary, it would have to be fought at all costs. And that, my friends, is why the American people need honest answers. Because they will go to he11 and back to wage war when they have to, but they will not back an unnecessary war.

The final piece of the puzzle is international support. We would have to convince at least the Saudis that the war is necessary and in their best interests.

Exactly what is the threat, and how big a threat is it? I'm not certain that those points are clear enough right now. They may become clear enough at some point, at which time we have to make the choice of whether to wage war or not.”

“"The final piece of the puzzle is international support. We would have to convince at least the Saudis that the war is necessary and in their best interests."

It's definitely NOT in the best interest of the Saudis. An American-friendly government in Iraq would be their worst nightmare, since Iraq has what, I think the second largest proven oil reserve in the world? Also, the Saudis definitely do not want a large U.S. military presence in the region. Look how mad they've gotten at Qatar lately for allowing U.S. bases there! They certainly don't want additional U.S. pressure to force them to cooperate with dealing with the al qaeda problem in Saudi Arabia. The Crown Prince has done everything to deflect U.S. pressure - including the disingenous Israel/Palistinian peace proposal - because popular unrest is at a high in the Kingdom.”

“As far as other allied support goes, Sadam has been very clever not to do anything too outrageous for the past several years. The Europeans have too many economic ties to Iraq and don't want a war to disrupt that. They can point and say "look, Iraq hasn't been a threat to anybody lately."”

“Eggzaketly!”

“I don't think I belong on this thread. Guys all discuss politics. Girls are concerned w/ emotions. Nevermind me boys.”

“Anything you have to say is as valid as anything anybody else has to say.”

“No newgirl - All viewpoints are welcome here. I just wanted to determine if you believe in a right to self-defense.

What I wanted to get started here was a discussion of whether a sufficient case has been presented for the US to act in self-defense.”

“To act in self defense is predicated on a threat, and the question I posed is what is the threat? Is Sad Sack going to nuke us? Was he involved in Sept. 11? Is he hijacking planes? What?

He hasn't blown up a destroyer, he hasn't bombed an embassy, he hasn't blown up anything. He probably has chemical and nuclear weapons of some sort or other, I'll posit that. But what would he use them for?

About all he's done is fly aircraft into the no-fly zone and pay the price.

I don't particularly like the sonuva#&%!$, and if he left the world right now we'd be better off for it. But in order for me to want to go to war there has to be a reason. Sept. 11 was a reason to go to war. Sad Sack is not. At least not yet.”

“I agree. The costs seem to outweigh the benefits.”

“The question to ask yourself is this: What has Saddam done that would make me want to get horribly wounded or die for? Because that is the bottom line: somebody will have to die. Is Saddam worth your life or not?”

“Violin, in that way, I'm saying that I do not believe there is sufficient case for war . . . ever.

I do believe in self-defense, just not on a people against a people scale.”

“Based upon your first answer, I think I could probably work through some scenarios where you would agree that war was necessary or just, newgirl (not good or desirable – just), but I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Regarding your depiction of women as emotionally unsuited to such discussions, as a father of three daughters, I have to chastise you on your sexism. I’m sure that wishy-washy Condoleeza Rice would back me up on this.”

“I say, blast 'em back to the Stone Age (not a very long trip, btw). Pave the country over, turn it into an amusement park (Terror World?) and let the Palestinians run the concessions.”

“Or Golda Meier.”

“Violin, I didn't mean that women are emotionally unsuited to the discussion, just that many women view it from the standpoint of emotional costs. I studied this in my Current Global Issues class. We took a close look at groups of women (one of them is called "Women Waging Peace") that try to get some of the people in power positions (often men) to look at the none political aspect of war. I was saying that I thought that you guys felt that the appropriate way to discuss this topic was by discussing the politics of do it or don't, and that I think of discussing it from a "human" viewpoint.”