[kerelybonto]

kelly, on Halloween 1998, Iraq refused the UNSCOM inspectors access to anywhere in the country. After allowing them back on limited terms about a month later, Saddam Hussein again barred them from inspecting anything, this time permenantly -- or, well, until this new agreement that has yet to be enacted.

Take at look at USA Today's Showdown in Iraq page (this is the 1998 'showdown,' not the current showdown or any of the other showdowns previously or ad interim). Start at the bottom of the page with the 31 October article, 'Iraq halts dealings with U.N. inspectors' and work your way up. Scanning the headlines will give you the general picture, but if you actually read the articles you'll get a better idea or what was going on. But basically you'll see a lot of headlines that go something like 'Clinton: We're gonna toast ya, Saddam!' until you get to 16 December and see the headline 'Clinton orders airstrikes against Iraq.' In an astouding display of resolve, our good President launched a sortie of cruise missiles at various sites around Iraq that acomplished, well, nothing -- and this after a month and a half of trash talking, including (supposedly) serious discussion on ousting Saddam.

You'll notice that USA Today gave up on the 'Showdown' in mid-1999. Essentially, the there was no change in the situation for over four years, until just recently when the UN and Iraq agreed to, what's this?, weapons inspections. Yeah.

By the way, I'm going to limit myself to narrating in this thread so as not to violate my self-imposed gag order.

kerely

 

[aeberbach]

An attack on Iraq would be a cynical exercise in popularity and nothing more. To be seen as a good guy you have to identify a bad guy. Providing a bunch of young pilots with a target rich environment and CNN with a lot of cool pictures of really expensive toys exploding will be the defining moment in this presidency. It worked for Thatcher in '82 and it will work again for Blair and Bush in 2004!

 

[00940]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly The big "justification" for this action is that they are claiming a war with Iraq will prevent them from being able to launch a nuclear or biological attack against us in the future.

sure, i have got it always in mind. The argument raised by Markl isn't absolutly false. We'll never go in war against North Corea. I agree there is a real difference between Saddam and all the other dictators : he already used WOMD. More than once. But this point isn't enough to go to war. Tsahal stopped the development of the Iraqi nuclear programme just by a raid of f16 in the 80's. And above everything, where are the vectors ? A few scud with limited range ? I've really a problem to see why Iraq ? Towards all other rogue countries (North Korea, Iran, Lybia, Sudan), USA are promoting an integration in the world economy. Where is the problem in this particular case ?

Quote:

I would say that the occupation itself is also of general importance to the US. Even if Iraq had a change of regime there is no promise of stability and with the wealth of their natural resources behind them another tyrany could become just as threatening. Long term, the US has a stake in establishing the new government of Iraq.

Everybody needs stability there. I am just affraid than the USA or more precisely the public opinion won't accept to pay a possible blood price to maintain stability.

Quote:

I'd also say our governments are concerned with the stability of Saudi Arabia. If the US became less involved in the middle east, a Saudi invasion by neighboring countries would be guaranteed. The Saudis know this and despite not enjoying our military presence have been more supportive toward our efforts recently because the alternative for them is so grave.

Who would invade Saudi Arabia ? Saddam has not the quarter of the conventionnal forces needed. They are equiped with high tech weapons and their forces are the best trained of all the Gulf. I would say that the West is now far more concerned about Saudi Arabia itself. The renewed allegiance of Arabia is more a way to try to dismiss all the accusations of these last months. Now, everybody knows that the Saudians financed (finance ?) radical islamist movments all around the world (not only Talebans).

 

[kelly]

kerelybonto
Thanks for explaining what you meant. I don't think the political and social climate of the Clinton years could honestly have supported a more aggressive action. I think honestly it is only the actions we've blamed on Al Queda that have afforded our government the permission of the public and politicians to take a more aggressive stand now. I think this is also why the Pentagon is presenting this as dire--it's really now or never.

 

[kelly]

00940
I'm not sure what will happen with North Korea but I believe the perception is that they can be negotiated with. North Korea has shown efforts recently to establish better public relations and I think their goals will be economic access rather than implying a physical thread.

I see Saudi Arabia as being in a bit of a pickle. Their people obviously very much dislike the US, our soldiers and western idealogy in general. However, without us I don't think your assessment of their military is complete. Maybe the Saudis can out-gun Iraq in military but what about the factions and extremists groups that already exist inside their country? Saudi Arabia could fall victim to terrorism and destruction as easily as other countries have and the economic stakes are much higher.

 

[kerelybonto]

markl, I recommend you read the book Hiroshima's Shadow, ed. Kai Bird, which is a collection of essays, contemporaneous and decades post facto, both in support of and condemning the bombing. Unfortunately the book has a highly revisionist bias, but it's interesting nonetheless. If you really want to explore the question, I can recommend other sources as well.

I'd also be happy to share a short essay I wrote on the subject that fairly concisely and completely states my position on subject, which I arrived at after a few months of study and research. The topic's been of interest to me since living on an island that had been one of the bloodiest battlefields of the Pacific war, located a few miles from where the atomic bombs embarked on their final flights toward the home islands.

But this has nothing to do with Iraq. So maybe a subject for another day.

kerely

 

[kerelybonto]

kelly, I agree that the current stand against Iraq was made possible by September 11th, as pathetic as that is. And you're right, if nothing happens now -- with a Republican Congress and Presidency, a still somewhat fearful public, and the necessary headlines -- nothing ever will. Either Saddam'll turn into the second coming of Fidel Castro or will actually go do some damage. But I don't think so. February.

North Korea is a fundamentally different situation than Iraq. Not only is North Korea an isolated, backward country, it's hemmed in by the Chinese on one side and the most secure border in the world on the other. But if nothing else, I hope North Korea's revelation will give the Japanese the balls to become a more proactive leader in the region's geopolitics ... if only they'd scrap that stupid constitution.

And, kelly, have you been keeping up on the political climate in Saudi Arabia? Let's just say the House of Saud no longer pretends to be bosom buddies with us Americans.

kerely

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Considering the current terrorist threats we have on our country, I don't think we can afford to tick off too many more allies and people around the world. The repercussions of this could be devastating to our country!

I was there right off te coast of Kuwait for nearly 7 months in harms way aboard teh USS Wisconsin lobbing 16" shells into Kuwait in an effort to defeat this madman, and I for one don't think it's one nation's job to police the world and keep everyone else in line!!! Every nation who ever tried ot do that has fallen, and we're perched dangerously close to doing just that. One man knocks down two buildings and throws nearly the entire world into financial ruins, imagine what would happen if they again decide to attack, but this time in larger numbers and in more cities!! I don't even want to think what these people are capable of!!!!!!!!!

 

[kelly]

kerelybonto
All I've seen about Saudi Arabia in recent news are the brief snips of them saying they support our efforts against terrorism but will not allow us to use a base there against Iraq. What am I missing?

And why February? You seem to want to be asked that. If political gains are at stake then the later the better since any war effort would need to last through November 2004, not be old news and remain mostly positive. (Ie, we have to be engaged but "winning.") If the US is waiting to see what Iraq reveals in their weapons list, the deadline is early December.

 

[00940]

Hey Kelly, you were speaking of an invasion by "foreign countries". I couldn't disagree with your views on the internal situation of Saudi Arabia.

I am flirting with the idea that Saddam has to be removed because he refuses to play the game. This guy is not at his place in Middle East. His prime minister was a Christian, he made everything to seperate state and religion and is running a non-officially-muslim country. If he had been wizer, he had everything to become the spearhead of western power in the Gulf.

His repeated provocation are perhaps what lost him.

 

[andrzejpw]

Kelly: After february, an attack on iraq would be made more difficult because of the weather. Now, its winter in iraq, and the heat is lessened.

About Saudi Arabia: from what I've been able to gather from reading the news, magazines, etc, the Saudis don't really like us.

In fact, its been said that the reason Saudi Arabia doesn't openly dislike us is our protection/oil.

 

[00940]

Kelly never said the Saudians like the US.
He said only they support the US now.

That's pretty different.

About the crappy constitution of Japan, it was imposed by the allies at the end of WWII. I wouldn't like to see a Japan engaged in a weapon race with China. I prefer to see Japanese capital flowing into China.

 

[Tuberoller]

I would really like for you guys to visit some of the Military family sites and see what the soldiers and their families think about going to war with Iraq.It is easy enough for people who have no real stake in any armed conflict to suggest that we "do something".I bothers me when those who have never served their country or fired a shot for freedom strongly and openly suggest and demand that military action be taken.I beg all of you to look at this through the eyes of a soldier,his mother,his wife,and his children before you jump on the war wagon.It is no less than insulting when people suggest that some vets such as Gen.Colin Powell and myself suffer from "Vietnam Syndrome" as has been done here in the past.We just don't want to see one soldier die when diplomatic solutions still exist.This discussion should not take place here.This is too important a topic to be used for Kelly's flame bait.I ask you all as a MARINE CORPS Gulf War Veteran to refrain from using this thread to voice opinions that can only be misunderstood by vets such as myself.I don't get it and I don't think that I ever will.Let my position on this matter be clear,I am not against my President in any way.I disagree on the timing of any Iraq action and I strongly believe that we will need further support.If it were up to me,everyone making the decision to go to war would have to actually fight in such a war.I think the war mongers would be far less prominent.

 

[kerelybonto]

kelly, Saudi-American relations have really gone downhill since Prince Abdullah became the de facto leader of the Kingdom since King Fahd's increasing incapacity in the last few years. I'd put Saudi Arabia right up there with the least cooperative of the Arab states.

I've been saying Februrary since the summer. As andrzejpw pointed out, the weather is a big issue, but the timing's important for other other tactical considerations as well. Actually, at this point I probably would be saying something later than Februrary, but I'll stick with it because I think our government's been doing a lot more than we know about. I should check to see where the prepro ships are right now. ...

Japan -- ah, Japan. Lesse, the Japanese have been the second largest economy for the past, I don't know, thirty years or so, they have a system of institutionalized liberalism that's very rare on that side of the world, and yet they play no major leadership role in the region's international affairs. Their constitution can be changed (their response to September 11th was a step in the right direction), and in my opinion should be. The Japanese and Germans have been living in fear of themselves for the past fifty years.

kerely

 

[elipsis]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberoller I would really like for you guys to visit some of the Military family sites and see what the soldiers and their families think about going to war with Iraq.It is easy enough for people who have no real stake in any armed conflict to suggest that we "do something".I bothers me when those who have never served their country or fired a shot for freedom strongly and openly suggest and demand that military action be taken.I beg all of you to look at this through the eyes of a soldier,his mother,his wife,and his children before you jump on the war wagon.It is no less than insulting when people suggest that some vets such as Gen.Colin Powell and myself suffer from "Vietnam Syndrome" as has been done here in the past.We just don't want to see one soldier die when diplomatic solutions still exist.This discussion should not take place here.This is too important a topic to be used for Kelly's flame bait.I ask you all as a MARINE CORPS Gulf War Veteran to refrain from using this thread to voice opinions that can only be misunderstood by vets such as myself.I don't get it and I don't think that I ever will.Let my position on this matter be clear,I am not against my President in any way.I disagree on the timing of any Iraq action and I strongly believe that we will need further support.If it were up to me,everyone making the decision to go to war would have to actually fight in such a war.I think the war mongers would be far less prominent.

What?

Only veterans and soldiers have the right to discuss whether war should take place? Soldiers are paid to obey the orders of the president in the defence of the populace. I don't have favourable opinions on GWB, or on most of US foreign policy over the last 50 years, but at the same time, I feel that if you signed up for the military, you better be ready to obey your head of state, who, in turn, is acting in the interests and at the behest of the populace. Soldiers do a job, the job that they're paid to do. Their reasons for it are many and varied, but the fact remains that that's their chosen profession.