If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
They have now started to equate Saddam with Hitler and the American stance against the dictator with Churchill's defiance against the Nazis; arguably the two most absurd comparisons the world has ever had to listen to. And in view of raising European concerns they now tell us that in the near future Saddam might be able to build a mid-range ballistic missile capable of reaching most of Europe. (We should be scared- very scared. We should take action NOW!)
These are nothing but patronising attempts to gain support from a sceptical international community. Whilst there might be a genuine case against Saddam, the case remains that the U.S. has not presented a single thread of evidence to justify an attack on Iraq now. Nothing has changed in the last few years to justify an invasion with such urgency. Most impartial observers agree that Iraq is nowhere near producing a nuclear warhead. They of course might still have chemical and biological capability, but given the 10-year embargo on all equipment and their piss-poor Scud missiles, chances are that Saddam has about the same chance of putting a man on the moon as to building a successful mid-range ballistic missile.
Of course he might still present a threat to his neighbours, but the doubt remains of whether he is a ‘clear and present danger’, minded to launch an imminent and unprovoked attack, that might justify invading Iraq.
I'm sorry but it has become clear to most people that the U.S. is acting here with ulterior motives and a hidden agenda. The consequences of an attack without proper justification and without the approval of the international community and the U.N. could be catastrophic for the war on terrorism, the situation in the Middle East and future relations between an increasingly isolated U.S.A. and the rest of the world.
In this world, Money is greater than principles.
We can bleat all we want about how this war shouldnt go ahead but nothing will happen. Nobody can do anything about it. Nobody on the planet can stand up to the USA, nobody will even be willing to do so.
In short, the USA can do whatever the hell it likes.
I am constantly amazed at how many hard-nosed warmongering fools there are amongst my countrymen. Its all too easy to stomp and fume and demand war as long as it doesnt settle in your backyard. Believe me, most average Americans neither know nor care where most of these nasty countries are. Proof positive that we've become a country of gun crazed militant maniacs ready to jump on whatever bandwagon our leaders decide to dream up.
Wake up folks, war and aggression do not occur in a vacuum. There are global consequences that accompany such actions and my compatriots need to start understanding that we cannot attack everything that displeases us or which disagrees with us without serious political, economic or (yes indeed) militaristic consequences coming back to haunt us.
Time for the West to take a serious chill pill and sort things out like responsibile global citizens, not power mad schoolyard bullies.
Maybe thats just what the world needs
With regard to Europe, this might prove the last straw of a series of incidents in which the U.S. has snubbed its allies. From continuous vetoing of U.N. resolutions to refusal to sign various international agreements (Kyoto, International Court of Justice, etc) to unjust and uncalled for trade embargoes to disregard for most initiatives that come from the Continent... A lot of things could happen as a result: a deterioration of diplomatic relations would lead to economic uncertainty and trade wars. This would ultimately be harmful to everyone, but it is not that unlikely. But a worse consequence for the U.S. would be the deterioration and ultimate demise of NATO. At the time where the EU is pressing ahead with a European Army Force, it wouldn't be surprising if Germany, France and many other countries started to neglect NATO. At the end of the day, we would be much better served by a defense force that is controlled by ourselves than that dinosaur organisation that only seems to come to action to serve the U.S. interests.
No, I think in the long term the U.S. could have a lot to lose. When even Britain is officially starting to question the wisdom of an attack, you know the Americans have all but run out of allies.
Eh?
And if you think distance is going to help you, I suggest you rethink about how far New York is from Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Brussels is a lot closer to Baghdad than New York is. Softer target too.
Part of what I do is assessing target risk and vulnerability. You keep thinking you have any idea what you are talking about. Saddam has chemical and biological weapons. That means EVERYBODY is at risk. EVERYWHERE. The only solution is to destroy those WMD before they are used (not much different than nukes..the whole point of disarmament).
Well im terribly fucking sorry...Im not American, I dont get the reference to selling me some land in the everglades.
As for how that former inspector can cite that we would know if Saddam was up to his old tricks despite the absence of people on the ground, it's simple. We have highly sophisticated satellite mounted earth imaging tools which are more than certainly trained on Iraq. He would need to undertake civil engineering projects on a significant scale to put any such facilities back online and if he did, America's traditonal allies would not be calling for concrete proof of the US admins claims as they are.
As for delivering WMD's manually, well that's another point of contention amongst the best analysts in the field. Despite Bush's attempts to link Iraq to known terrorist activities, no such evidence exists. He tried to link Attah to Iraq only to have the reports he based his attempts upon proven to be spurious. So dont invent fantasy scenarios just to justify wreckless pre-emptive action. This is the problem with giving the military too free a hand in world affairs. This is one problem that won't be solved with more violence.
You can assess the risks all you like, you no doubt inflate them to serve your political bent, but the fact remains that their is much more at risk here than removing one regime from power. For all your professional experience you demonstrate complete ignorance in terms of geo-political consequences of this pursuit.
Tell me, how did a small group of Japanese manufacture Sarin?
Once again, Saddam has used WMD since the Gulf War. Why should we think that he no longer has them? And what makes you think that it requires all that much construction to manufacture chemical or biological weapons? A little research would be well worthwhile, once again. Under what conditions, and in what type of facilities did the Germans and Japanese manufacture WMD in WWII? Oh, and maybe you didn't notice, but another inspector (one who was in Iraq more recently) has stated that it is almost 100% sure that Iraq has developed new WMD. And as has been pointed out by a number of people, "your" inspector contradicts himself numerous times. Of course, you just keep relying on those satellites. I'll continue to consider HUMINT. Btw, I doubt very much that any government is going to clear you to know the actual status of weapons and readiness anywhere, so it isn't really a surprise that you aren't "privy" to the status of Iraq's.
Regardless, there is no requirement for proof of any sort. We have a regime that agreed to a truce which they have yet to abide by. Reason enough.
(Oh, one more thing....you might want to do a little serious research into the Vietnam Conflict. I'd bet that your ideas about it are significantly flawed as well.)
And id ask you to be more precise about which of my views on the Vietnam war are ill conceived? It was headline news when the truth behind our reasons for entering the war came out so I am not about to accept that we were not in the wrong then just as I firmly believe we are in the wrong in the current state of affairs.
And as requested, here is some research to back up my position in that regard (and by default my reasoning behind the current conflict in planning...)
http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html
Lies and allegations seem to be all the US public need to rush headlong in problematic conflicts.
New York Post
By RALPH PETERS
August 29, 2002 -- IF you predict disaster constantly, you may be right eventually. But the track record of America's pundits on military matters looks laughably shabby for now.
For the past dozen years, self-appointed experts have told us, over and over again, that American troops are inferior to our enemies of the moment. Wrong every time, the library lefties and bow-tied wise guys aren't going to give up now. Always rooting for America to lose and imagining spectacular virtues for our enemies, they despise trivial qualities such as dedication, skill, self-sacrifice and courage.
Tell it to the Marines.
At present, all the pop-up geeks with eyeglasses wider than their shoulders, as well as a parade of yesterday's failed "statesmen," warn us, oh-so-solemnly, that a military campaign to destroy Saddam and his regime would be too tough for our troops, suggesting intolerable casualty levels and near-certain defeat.
Does this sound familiar to anyone?
When Saddam invaded Kuwait, the armchair generals assured us that the Iraqi military was battle-hardened, that our own forces were soft and untested and that tens of thousands of American soldiers would come home in body bags if we intervened.
Well, our troops went through Saddam's sad-sacks faster than Lizzie Grubman can drive an SUV through a Hamptons party.
Remember those 10-foot-tall Serbs in the wreckage of Yugoslavia? The guys who were "natural-born guerrillas"? They were going to eat G.I. Joe alive, according to the pundits.
Today, Milosevic is on trial and all those Serb hard boys are hustling black-market cigarettes for a living.
The Somalis, too, were supposed to be unbeatable tribal warriors. Despite being denied the arms for which their commanders had asked, U.S. troops under attack killed more bad guys in Mogadishu than anybody could count, performing magnificently. Only the world-class cowardice of a president who modeled his patriotism on the leaders of Vichy France brought us a declaration of defeat in the wake of a battlefield victory.
Finally, last autumn, countless talking heads assured us that Afghanistan had never been conquered and that our troops were no match for warriors who had been fighting for more than 20 years. Our defeat was inevitable.
Where are they now, all those "informed sources" who warned us that we were bound to fail in Afghanistan? They're back in print and on the airwaves, insisting that a campaign against the Iraqi regime will end in a strategic disaster.
This time out, the prophets of doom have been reinforced by a self-righteous squad of former Washington insiders who left nothing but problems behind when they left government to peddle their reputations. It's a sad day when we have former secretaries of state who sound like they're on the Saudi payroll.
Certainly, there are genuine challenges and dangers attendant to a war to end what our previous war against Iraq left unfinished.
* Saddam is unlikely to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction, against us and against his own people, if he can manage it.
* While the bulk of the Iraqi army will not fight - except to fight to be the first to become POWs - the SS wannabes surrounding Saddam may resist (for about 15 minutes, anyway).
* The specter of a vast urban battle for Baghdad must be considered, but, frankly, the likelier scenario is the fall of Kabul (or Paris).
* And the logistics problems of supporting an all-out war are formidable (though not insuperable), thanks to the refusal of our Arab "friends" to support any efforts to bring justice and democracy to their disgracefully bigoted neighborhood.
As a former soldier, I certainly do not take the prospect of any war lightly, and I dearly wish that one of Saddam's inner circle would help us all out with a couple of 9mm rounds. I am willing, even now, to listen to arguments as to why we should not attempt to depose Saddam. But I will not listen to the chairborne commandos who tell me that our military cannot defeat the Iraqi regime.
If we go, there are three things we need to make clear up front, to help out our troops (instead of constantly belittling those who risk their lives for our country):
* The Bush administration needs to announce, publicly, that any use of weapons of mass destruction against our forces or our allies will bring a disproportionate response with our own weapons of mass destruction. No second chances.
* The administration should announce, just as publicly, that we will grant a blanket amnesty to every other Iraqi general and official - if they eliminate Saddam and his inner circle themselves. As a minimum, this would make Saddam even more untrusting and apt to purge the very men he needs for his survival struggle.
* We need to stop yapping about elegant solutions and low-cost operations. If someone manages a clever way to bring down Saddam, great. But we cannot count on it, and we cannot afford a defeat or even a temporary setback. We must not move against Iraq without sufficient forces in theater to finish the job.
Give our troops the backing they need, practical and political, and they will always give us victory. Listen to the pundits and the self-serving revisionists, and we'll spend our lives waiting for 9/11 Part Two (and Parts Three and Four, etc.).
We must always question, honestly and searchingly, the wisdom of any war. Healthy skepticism is a vital part of our national character. Just don't tell me America's men and women in uniform can't win.
Retired Army officer Ralph Peters is the author, most recently, of "Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World."
Glad to see you choosing some yahoo cowboy as your source for truth Greenhat.
You might be interested however, to note that retired Gen. Wesley Clark has been speaking out on CNN International recently saying exactly what the more level headed amongst us have been arguing. At least he recognises the need for patience, international cooperation, and the use of military action only as an absolute last option.
If your point is that the US can destroy Iraq, well i doubt that is really news to anyone. That isnt the big issue at stake here though.
The real issue is what happens if and when the US deposes Saddam. Bush and his cronies clearly don't comprehend nor care about the consequences to the stability of the region or they wouldnt be so eager to rush in and create yet another breeding ground for tribal/factional infighting to fill the power vacuum. And at the end of the day, remember, what comes after may be even worse than before.
It's time Bush and his bully boys tried to be real leaders and deal with our domestic crisis rather than hoping to score points on the basis of a wartime record alone. It's a clear sign of a poor leader when the only way to gain popularity is to start (or even resume)a war somewhere.
And as a sidenote, the idea of the US even threatening the use of our own WMD would make us no better than Saddam and would certainly give enormous moral highground to terrorist organisations around the globe. This so-called war on terrorism to date has not even touched the root causes of terrorism (i.e. poverty and lack of opportunity or hope). Violence breeds violence and nothing more.
That essay is a bit unrelated to this thread don't you think? I believe nobody doubts the fighting capability or firing power of the U.S. army. We should we talking about why those soldiers are about to be sent to invade another country, instead discussing what the outcome of the attack would be.
I'm not sure how old you are, you might remember the oil crisis of 1973 (but if not then look back in the history books) and then argue that control of the world's oil isn't something about which we should be concerned.
You might also look to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and the reasons for that.
Then perhaps you could look around and see how we currently depend of oil for our everyday life.
As for using force as a last resort, after 11 years during which time the US could have attacked at any time, I'd say there had been a little restraint shown. Maybe not as much as you would like (I'm still trying to work out what you believe grounds would be for an attack on Iraq), but there has been restraint, the UN have been involved, the US/UK have called for weapons inspectors to be allowed into Iraq without restrictions and they have been warning for some time that they would consider military action.
Let me ask you this. What do you prpose the US does about Saddam and his regime?
As for the Japanese group who released the Sarin, all reports indicated that they made it themselves.
Anyone ever hear about the mysterious explosion in the Australian outback?
A few years ago reasonable seismic tremors appeared worldwide, and their origin was Australia. Not being on a fault line, the government wondered what had caused it, so they sent scientists to investigate. Upon arrival at the epicentre they found that someone had detonated a nuclear warhead there.
Later investigations found that the same group who released the sarin nerve gas was responsible, and the evidence they collected was that they had created the bomb with no outside assistance.
Likewise, there is no evidence that Al-Qaeda has had any help from Iraq.
I have no doubt that the USA would wipe the floor with the Iraqis, with or without our support.
However, if it attacks without the support of the world community, there will be conscequences. The USA will find itself isolated, politically and economically.
Countries that do large amounts of trade with the US will decide that they are better off trading with more trustworthy nations.
The oil producing nations will decide that they want to see the US suffer for its pig headedness and cut off supplies.
Yes there are oil deposits in Alaska and Texas, but how long do you think these will last at the hands of the most wasteful nation on Earth?
It will find it's troops expelled from countries were they have bases, embassies closed, diplomats removed.
The world will suddenly remind itself that America believes it can "go it alone" and doesn't need anyone's help, which is certainly the attitude of many Americans here.
And Clandestine, I've noticed how you keep not responding to areas that have been addressed by others.
Btw, Whowhere, you have made my point. If that Japanese group could manufacture Sarin without any major facilities, why would we rely on satellite survelliance to tell us when Iraq has such weapons?
I thought you stated that the Japanese group had to rely on Iraqi sources for their materials.
And Sarin is different from Anthrax. Sarin is a non lingering nerve agent, non infectious and relatively easy to manufacture on a small scale.
You can make chlorine gas by shopping at a pool supply shop, if you really want to go out and kill people.
Making biological agents, requires a larger, more visible infrastructure than one for making chemical agents. Vats are needed to culture enough of a virus to kill many people, chlorine gas can be made by exposing chlorine used to clean pools to sulphuric acid which is readily available.
2. I didn't say or infer that the Japanese group had anything to do with Iraq. My point was that it is not necessary to have extensive facilities or infrastructure to create WMD.
3. What does Anthrax have to do with anything? Sarin is a WMD.
4. Hmmmm....then how was Smallpox distributed to the Native American population? Did the technology even exist to grow cultures in a controlled environment? Yet, biological weapons were used....
There is a significant difference between building WMD in a controlled, tightly regulated environment in which the WMD will be created with failsafe procedures (binary agents, etc.) and building WMD at whatever cost and with no regard for safety or failsafes. The latter is far easier, and far more dangerous.
Delivery systems are a bit different. The more advanced, the more dangerous. But it doesn't require sophisticated delivery systems to use these weapons. Just people willing to sacrifice their lives. Saddam has demonstrated he has access to sufficient numbers of those.
Don't evaluate Saddam by your ethics, code of morality, culture, or logic. It doesn't match him or his approach to the world. He will use WMD, preferably on his schedule, when it does him the most good. Should we wait until he has more effective weapons and methods of delivery?
what do you suggest should happen once Saddam has been ousted? who would you like him replaced by?
People against invasion, on what grounds would you support it?
and those for it, in what circumstances would make it wrong?
i'm just basically after a summary of opinions, i'm unsure what to think so far because i can see a case for both sides.
As for the question above, my main contention in all this is the adamant insistence of the Bush administration that war is a must despite the fact that they refuse, using the most circular arguments, to show clear and concrete proof to the majority of the coalition partners and yet expect that everyone should just line up on their say so.
As if there is no possible hidden agenda far more important to the administration than Saddam and his evil ways. Our own foreign policy history is so riddled with corrupt and illicit dealings, establisihing of oppressive regimes and arming them, CIA drug trafficking, and the list goes on and on. Yet Bush has the audacity to act as some sainted knight out to save the world. It's pure and undiluted bullshit frankly.
If such evidence that he has substantial capability exists then I like the majority of the international community demand that it be shown, authenticated for varacity by thrid party experts, and decided upon by the UN. If and when that comes to pass and the UN is satisfied that action must be taken then I would support action. But I refuse to simply blindly believe that a man who's own father began this confrontation doen't have more up his sleeve than the world is being told.
Your arguments have all been addressed. Your arguments are naive and in some cases rediculous, but you want to stick by them. Have at it. Just don't lie to us and pretend it is because of some other reason than your unreasoning hatred for George W. Bush.
To be called naive by someone as incapable of rational analytical argumentation as yourself or Thanatos, I consider to be laughable.
Lying in a court of law had nothing to do with his performance as President?