Posted by Phoebus Apollo on 3/31/2003, 12:31 am, in reply to "Re: Ted Galen Carpenter sums up my views nicely." I knew that Iraq used them against Iran, in fact, I just got back from a message board commenting on their use. However, when I said I doubt Iraq will use chemical weapons in an offensive manner (and using them now or in the Gulf War would be considered Defensive), I was referring to an offense against the U.S., some key points to consider: 1) Deployment: Iraq does not have missles that can deploy any chemical agent or radioactive compound to U.S. shores. A ground or secretive deployment would carry a high risk of being detected - it's hard to stockpile and move weapons of mass destruction without people knowing, especially across the globe. 2) Even if the weapons could be deployed, it's very unlikely they could be deployed on a scale which seriously threatens the U.S., we can deal with minor terrorism without a massive pre-emptive war. 3) Unlike Al Qaeda, a terrorist group which operates in disconnected "cells", if Iraq decided to make itself known as the perpetrator behind an offensive against the U.S., it would be near impossible for it to be in power for more than a week. Mutually assured destruction deters, a fact the Cold War proved. When we've staved at bay Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong diplomatically, both global superpowers with massive nuclear arsenals, this small bully in the middle of a desert on the other side of the world just doesn't seem like a "serious and imminent threat" to our national security. The idea that tomorrow we could be flying the Iraqi flag is a joke. Saddam's regime has tried to assassinate an American president. Well hey, George Bush Sr. declared war against Iraq. What do you think the Iraqis would try to do to him? That's what happens when you declare war in the first place. He was out of office at the time, but still. If you think this justifies the war, then we should've gone to war back when it happened. Had Bush Sr. not gone to war in the first place, he wouldn'tve had to worry about assasination attempts, would he? Remember Clinton's response to that? Bombed the hell out of a IIS building. We did retailiate, you know. Considering that Bush wasn't even in office, it's kinda lame. Saddam's regime has tried repeatedly to gain access to long range ballistics research, for weapons that could strike anywhere in the world (including the U.S.). A nation just gaining the ability for long range ballistic missles, or better yet, a nation POSSIBLY trying to BEGIN researching, is not a "serious and imminent" threat. At all. Period. If we stayed out of it, Iraq wouldn't even be an issue. They'd go try to take over Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or fight more with Iran. Then we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism and assassination attempts. There are plenty of other anti-American regimes that have worse capabilities than Iraq. Take North Korea for instance. Operation Urgent Fury was an excellent example of the U.S. making a pre-emptive strike against something considered hostile and potentially dangerous. Do you go to bed fearful of what would've happened had Operation Urgent Fury not saved us from Grenadan Communists? Don't you have nightmares of the White House flying the Grenadan flag? Percieved threats are percieved. Not "serious and imminent". Saddam's regime has offensively attacked two countries (that I know of), Iran and Kuwait (and I guess you could also include Israel in that category, although the Israel/Arab issue is extremely complicated). Yes, it has, and you can most definitely include Israel on that list. However, these nations (besides Israel, which Iraq was merely in a coalition against) are on military par with Iraq. There is a degree of parity in culture and border-sharing that makes it very plausible that Iraq's compulsion to attack these neighbors is much higher than it's compulsion to attack the United States. The serious military implications of an Iraqi assault on the U.S. is a outright joke. On Iran or Kuwait? Maybe not. It can gain ground with Iran. It can probably take over Kuwait. And let it. All I care about what it can do to us, which is jack diddly squat. Adolf Hitler... Woa woa woa. Bad comparison. Iraq is a mere schoolyard bully compared to Adolf Hitler. Do you seriously see Iraq becoming the equal to the United States in military capabilities anywhere in the near future? WW2 saw an aggressive nation that could've done that making massive land grabs. The biggest land grab Iraq ever made was Kuwait, and it failed miserably at that, and it's military is not comparable, even in the slightest. I'd even wager to guess that if WW2 Germany were zipped into the present to face off against modern day Iraq, Iraq would be as bad off as the Jews. Sure, I do not favor the power struggles people like Saddam make daily. What I do favor is the people of the Middle East, in Iraq, in nations affected by Iraq's military invasions, places like Israel, these people envoking their right and responsibility to shut Iraqi dictatorship down, or in the least, cut off it's abilities to affect their lives. It's not until EACH of these entities have become entirely helpless under a Iraq regime making liberal and aggressive threats to the United States that we say to ourselves it's OUR time to assume these responsibilities. It's not until we see WW2 happen again that we get involved like we did. And this is not WW2, not by a long shot. I don't think it's a good comparison, in short. Churchill's speach is very truthful of dictators, but it doesn't justify this pre-emptive strike on Iraq, definitely not like our involvement in WW2. That is why I'm not pro-war, but I am pro removing Saddam. Taken our slightly different reasoning, I think we can agree that this is definitely a good stance to take. I will argue vehemently that this war is not a good idea, however, I will also argue that in having our military deployed we should take out a disgusting and oppressive dictator. I'll shed no tears for a guy like Saddam getting killed. Or his family. Or the whole of Iraqi supporters for his cause. In my opinion, he is incapable and incompetent of being our President and an American figurehead. He makes us sound ignorant and he makes us look even worse. I'm upset with his administration, and I'm upset with myself for voting for him. Well hey, take a time travelling trip and that can be said about every president for the last 30 years or so. Facts are, he did give out a big tax cut, and while creating a sickingly expensive war engine and pass laws too many to count, the near even split in Congress and his akward policy making has stagnated government growth. Anything that stagnates government growth is good, because government is already far too large. What would be better is someone deciding to make government a little smaller, but I don't see many people voting for Harry Browne.
12.231.181.132
Conclusive proof that the Iraqis used chemical weapons in an OFFENSIVE strike on another soveriegn nation, despite their signing of the Geneva protocols.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread