Bush, Saddam, Annan, and Friends

[Chris Floyd]

Critics have been clamoring for Bush to "make the case" against Saddam Hussein. Yesterday, he said Saddam has made the case against himself. Who agrees? Who has opinions on what America should do, and when? Is Saddam a threat? Does he have weapons of mass destruction? What's the frequency, Kenneth?

[wumpus]

I tend to believe our intelligence agencies when it comes to evidence of "weapons of mass destruction." What purpose would it serve for us to lie about this without solid evidence?

[Xaroc]

I tend to believe our intelligence agencies when it comes to evidence of "weapons of mass destruction." What purpose would it serve for us to lie about this without solid evidence?

To get our citizens and the world behind a war effort?

-- Xaroc

[Met_K]

We attack Iraq. Iraq scud-missiles VX gas into Israel. Israel nukes Iraq.

A white flash of light is the last thing you see.

[William Harms]

I tend to believe our intelligence agencies when it comes to evidence of "weapons of mass destruction." What purpose would it serve for us to lie about this without solid evidence?

I really hope that you're being sarcastic.

[Ben Sones]

We attack Iraq. Iraq scud-missiles VX gas into Israel. Israel nukes Iraq.

A white flash of light is the last thing you see.

If Iraq had any missiles that could reach Israel, that might be a frightening scenario. Even at the height of its military power in the 90s, Iraq could barely hit the broad side of a barn with its Scuds. They were actually designed to have a range of only 300 km, but Hussein reconfigured them to fire at ranges up to 600 km so that he could target Tel Aviv. They were so inaccurate at that range that they were rendered practically useless, however.

It's all academic, however, because Unscom dismantled Iraq's missile stockpile after the end of the Gulf War. Iraq lacked skills and resources to build its own long range missiles before the war (the Scuds that it used were purchased from the Soviet Union in the 70s); it seems pretty unlikely that they could have made greater progress after the collapse of their industrial infrastructure. For what it's worth, it's considerably more difficult to engineer missiles (particularly long-range missiles) than it is to engineer, say, a nuclear warhead. It's equally difficult to engineer a warhead capable of effectively delivering chemical or biological agents, which is probably why Iraq didn't use any in the Gulf War. Impact fused warheads merely destroy the agents when they detonate.

[Met_K]

If Iraq had any missiles that could reach Israel, that might be a frightening scenario. Even at the height of its military power in the 90s, Iraq could barely hit the broad side of a barn with its Scuds. They were actually designed to have a range of only 300 km, but Hussein reconfigured them to fire at ranges up to 600 km so that he could target Tel Aviv. They were so inaccurate at that range that they were rendered practically useless, however.

It's all academic, however, because Unscom dismantled Iraq's missile stockpile after the end of the Gulf War. Iraq lacked skills and resources to build its own long range missiles before the war (the Scuds that it used were purchased from the Soviet Union in the 70s); it seems pretty unlikely that they could have made greater progress after the collapse of their industrial infrastructure. For what it's worth, it's considerably more difficult to engineer missiles (particularly long-range missiles) than it is to engineer, say, a nuclear warhead. It's equally difficult to engineer a warhead capable of effectively delivering chemical or biological agents, which is probably why Iraq didn't use any in the Gulf War. Impact fused warheads merely destroy the agents when they detonate.

Ah, but you see, all it takes is chance for anything to become a frighteningly realistic scenario.

I'm not saying it will happen, just that it could. With as much tension as there is, either one of two things will happen in -any- foreseeable scenario: A) The world will be completely, utterly fucked in a matter of hours or days, or B) The world works hard as hell to keep things from collapsing, and spend months negotiating and holding things together. They succeed.

The worst thing people can do in this situation is put a large amount of apathy towards Iraq. Ignoring the problem, even if it's not as extreme as it might be seen to be, is only going to lead to the worst outlook possible.

[asspennies]

We attack Iraq. Iraq scud-missiles VX gas into Israel. Israel nukes Iraq.

A white flash of light is the last thing you see.

So you agree that Iraq has these horrible weapons and the willingness to use them.

I guess we should just let them build whatever they want, right? Just let them stay like they are - heck, let them build nukes!

I'm not worried about an Iraqi nuclear missle. No one with any sense is.

What I AM worried about, however, is a briefcase smuggled into Washington with an Iraqi-built nuclear device given to Islamist terrorists. This is clearly not a dream-like scenario - this is a very real, very likely scenario should Iraq get access to such weapons.

Isn't the future lives of millions worth getting rid of Saddam?

[Met_K]

So you agree that Iraq has these horrible weapons and the willingness to use them.

I guess we should just let them build whatever they want, right? Just let them stay like they are - heck, let them build nukes!

I'm not worried about an Iraqi nuclear missle. No one with any sense is.

What I AM worried about, however, is a briefcase smuggled into Washington with an Iraqi-built nuclear device given to Islamist terrorists. This is clearly not a dream-like scenario - this is a very real, very likely scenario should Iraq get access to such weapons.

Isn't the future lives of millions worth getting rid of Saddam?

Holy fucking shit. You completely went off on a tangent that had nothing to do with what I'm saying. Nor did I ever say Iraq had a nuclear missile.

[Stroker Ace]

I tend to believe our intelligence agencies when it comes to evidence of "weapons of mass destruction." What purpose would it serve for us to lie about this without solid evidence?

I really hope that you're being sarcastic.

i hear wumpus rides rollercoasters with a steely frown... i don't think he's ever sarcastic.

[Jason Becker]

You can debate how much if any chemical or biological weapons he has at this point. What isn't debatable is that he has developed them in the past, and been willing to use them. He has been trying to get a nuclear weapon for along time too.

Take Israel's strike on Iraq's nuclear site in 1981. If this hadn't have happened Desert Shield/Storm could have been much diffrent with Saddam having a few nuclear weapons as threats.


Its not a pleasent thought about the casulties that could happen in a fight, but the possiblities if it isn't done and he gets nuclear capability is even worse. Al-Qaeda with a nuke is about tops on the list in term of nightmares.

[Jason McCullough]

Of course, Saddam would need to be clinically insane to either give a terrorist a nuclear weapon, or use it himself against the U.S., as it'd result in his swift death.

He's just as deterrable as the USSR was.

[Anonymous]

Of course, Saddam would need to be clinically insane to either give a terrorist a nuclear weapon, or use it himself against the U.S., as it'd result in his swift death.

He's just as deterrable as the USSR was.

Ok, listen, just shut up. Shut up. Just don't ever speak about politics or the military again. Please.

[Met_K]

That was me by the way. Just so you know, internet explorer blows with the new SP.

[Bub, Andrew]

Of course, Saddam would need to be clinically insane to either give a terrorist a nuclear weapon, or use it himself against the U.S., as it'd result in his swift death. He's just as deterrable as the USSR was.

That's not the problem. The problem is a Saddam Hussein that finds us as deterrable as the USSR was. He invades Kuwait. UN says "get out of there!" He threatens to use Nuke. What do we do next? It's the guy with less to lose that tends to win brinksmanship scenarios.

[Jason McCullough]

Of course, Saddam would need to be clinically insane to either give a terrorist a nuclear weapon, or use it himself against the U.S., as it'd result in his swift death. He's just as deterrable as the USSR was.

That's not the problem. The problem is a Saddam Hussein that finds us as deterrable as the USSR was. He invades Kuwait. UN says "get out of there!" He threatens to use Nuke. What do we do next? It's the guy with less to lose that tends to win brinksmanship scenarios.

If that's the case, why didn't the USSR just threaten to nuke countries over and over until the entire world surrendered to them? I mean, they were communist, and they didn't care about losing their own civilians as much as the west, right?

All of this hoo-hah about both NK and Iraq is centered on the concept of the Krazy Dictator. Even Quadiffi shut up after we threatened to kill him, remember?

[Jason Becker]

Comparing the USSR vs Saddam/ Iraq....umm yea.

[Chris Floyd]

Of course, Saddam would need to be clinically insane to either give a terrorist a nuclear weapon, or use it himself against the U.S., as it'd result in his swift death.

He's just as deterrable as the USSR was.

You're really saying that Saddam is NOT clinically insane? If "willing to bombard innocent civilians with mustard gas" doesn't register as insane, I'm not so sure what does. Now, his overactive self-obsession might be some kind of deterrant, as you point out, but there's no real reason to think it's enough to stop him from doing something really dreadful.

[Bub, Andrew]

Well first of all Mr. McCullough, comparing Iraq and the Soviets is loony. The Soviets were almost an equal. They were a Superpower. They had a huge conventional army and we kept THEM in check by basically saying: "We'll nuke you if you roll tanks into Berlin... kay?" We threatened first strike there and held them in check. Iraq is a completely different case. Not only does he win the "I'm willing to use chemical and bio weapons on my enemy"... he wins the "I have used them on my enemy and my own country" sweepstakes.

Comparing Libya to Iraq is even loonier. Quadaffi was a pain in the ass but he wasn't quite a megalomaniac. He's more the Castro type than Hussein. Saddam won't back down easy, and he especially won't back down if he has a nuke to back himself up. Do I think he's crazy enough to use one? Actually no. Probably for the same reason you don't think so. Do I think he should be allowed to have one? No. Do I think he'd threaten to use it? And do I think the UN/US would give him concessions/appeasement in the face of such a threat. Yes. I don't think we should ever allow Saddam to have more regional power than he currently wields.

I'd like to see him ousted, but I'm not entirely convinced Bush is the guy to do it, or this moment is the right time either. Some of this feels like election politics.

[Ben Sones]

Take Israel's strike on Iraq's nuclear site in 1981. If this hadn't have happened Desert Shield/Storm could have been much diffrent with Saddam having a few nuclear weapons as threats.


I doubt they'd be much of a threat. He lacks the missiles to carry them, and according to the UN weapons inspectors, he was having trouble designing a warhead small enough to fit on the end of a missile anyway. I'd be more worried about their use as suitcase bombs, but, well... if he can't figure out how to make a bomb small enough to fit on a warhead, then he'd need a really big suitcase.


He threatens to use Nuke.

I guess he could nuke himself. Without an effective means of delivery, nuclear weapons aren't particularly useful (I guess one could argue that they aren't particularly useful even with an effective means of delivery, but that's another argument). If he has them at all; most sources outside the Bush cabinet (and one within) seem to think that he doesn't.


Some of this feels like election politics.

It all feels like election politics. Throughout history, leaders have used this trick time and time again: stir up a war to take their citizens' attention away from shaky domestic affairs. As nice as it might be to rid the world of Saddam Hussein, however, I think this war would end up being horrendously unpopular both at home and abroad. Like, maybe Vietnam unpopular. Something needs to be done about Iraq, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the US is the country that needs to do it. Let the UN rattle their collective sabres for once.

[Jason McCullough]

Of course, Saddam would need to be clinically insane to either give a terrorist a nuclear weapon, or use it himself against the U.S., as it'd result in his swift death.

He's just as deterrable as the USSR was.

You're really saying that Saddam is NOT clinically insane? If "willing to bombard innocent civilians with mustard gas" doesn't register as insane, I'm not so sure what does. Now, his overactive self-obsession might be some kind of deterrant, as you point out, but there's no real reason to think it's enough to stop him from doing something really dreadful.

Ok, back up; clinical insanity (which isn't even in psychiatric use anymore; it's only used to determine if someone is legally liable for their actions) isn't the right question. The question is whether or not Saddam is a rational actor, capable of weighing the likely consequences of his actions.

The US has made it quite clear, on multiple occasions, that it will respond in kind to use of WMD on either its citizens or those of NATO. Saddam would need to be fundamentally irrational in a way he hasn't demonstrated to attack us with WMD, as the direct consequence of that would be his death. What has he done that indicates he's unconcerned with his own death? Does running a airtight police state, where all possible threats to his rule are ferreted out and squashed before they see the light of day, sound like this? How about executing members of his own family, does that sound like some one who's going to underestimate his own safety?

Think of Stalin & Mao: I'm not sure if crazy applies; it's kind of like ticketing Ted Bundy for jaywalking. They still knew better than to invade a country on our side of the line.

'Not only does he win the "I'm willing to use chemical and bio weapons on my enemy"... he wins the "I have used them on my enemy and my own country" sweepstakes.'

Iran didn't have a means to kill him. The Kurds didn't have a means to kill him. We do.

'They had a huge conventional army and we kept THEM in check by basically saying: "We'll nuke you if you roll tanks into Berlin... kay?" We threatened first strike there and held them in check. Iraq is a completely different case.'

This is exactly the same as Iraq threatening to invade the Kuwait under his "nuclear shield." Rational actors don't play nuclear chicken, because the stakes if they lose is too high. Even more so than the USSR, Saddam will be deterred, as there's absolutely no way he could survive the ludicrious military and WMD balance the U.S. has in its favor. Do you think even the most liberal, pacifist president electable in the United States would hesitate for ten seconds to vaporize Saddam (and everyone within 20 miles, whining about civilian deaths be damned) if he attacked our troops with WMD? The credible threat to do so carried us through 50 years of the Cold War; a Saddam so irrational that he'd miss the obvious consequences of his actions is completely to odds with his past history.

All a nuke gets Saddam is the rest of his natural lifespan; once he gets it, we certainly can't invade. I mean, if he's going to die anyway, sure, he'll fire away, but note in that case we're driving, not him.

Theoretically, hey, an Iraq with a nice little democracy and nothing bad happening to us would great. I'm damn unconvinced that it improves national security to get that result through an invasion, though; will Iraq become like Yugoslavia, with the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds slaughtering each other? Will a power vacuum destablize Iran? How does the Israel work into this? Will the (mostly) Western governments of Egypt & Pakistan (which definitely has nuclear weapons, for the love of god; imagine an new copy of the mid-80s Iran, which probably *was* irrational, with friggin' nukes, and itching to blow the living fuck out of India), already tenuous enough as it is, be deposed in a radicalized Islamic revolution?

That the only people in favor of this war are the usual hawks in Washington (Richard Perle, et al.), who've never met a war they didn't like, doesn't make me especially comfortable. Neither does the sotto-voice talk about how we can seize Iraq's oilfields, and use that to pay for the war. Neither does the polls, which show thirty-five fucking percent support for a Iraqi invasion without any allies assisting us. Only 55% support "large numbers of ground troops" to secure Iraq; if it happens, then this war will probably have the lowest level of support at the creation of any in our nation's history.

I am seriously worried that the administration hasn't thought through the consequences of what it's planning, and that can all be traced back to the incorrect, in my view, that "Saddam is an irrational, undeterrable actor."

[Brian Rucker]

And things get even more colorful if we continue setting the precidents we're setting. Detention without trial, and soliciting torture, was always fashionable in unsavory third world nations - now it's positively American. Having trouble with political agitators or revolutionaries? Call 'em terrorists and advertise to the world that you're doing your part to fight the 'war on terror'. Now, we tell China, India and Israel that if you think somebody might have weapons that could one day be used on you then you have every right to attack?

I think we've just gone psycho after 9-11. Nuclear material and weapons are probably going to be alot easier for terrorists to get from, say, a place that HAS them - say via Russia's black market. We need to be alienating the world community to fight a dubious war for dubious reasons with a dubious result?

This whole situation stinks to high heaven. Even if the UN gets bullied and bribed into going along and the congress, re: Democrats, remain a bunch of gutless wonders and go along out of political expediency I'm still going to think it stinks.

[Ben Sones]

Do you think even the most liberal, pacifist president electable in the United States would hesitate for ten seconds to vaporize Saddam (and everyone within 20 miles, whining about civilian deaths be damned) if he attacked our troops with WMD?

Yes.

[Tom Chick]

Ben, I think Jason's question was rhetorical. :)

I completley agree with Jason, although I wouldn't go so far as Brian's conclusion that we've "gone psycho". 9/11 started an admirable trend (rooting out terrorism at its source) and it's running its course. Soon the freedom/security pendulum will swing a little ways in the opposite direction.

But following through on an almost unilateral effort against Iraq is ill-advised. I don't buy that it's election politicking, I don't buy that it's a conspiracy of the intelligence agencies or military-industrial complex (whatever *that's* supposed to be...). I just think it's Bush getting a little carried away with a supposed mandate.

As Jason pointed out, Hussein is a player in the game of international politics. He's not going to start lobbing missiles at Israel. He's not going to start handing out anthrax and suitcase nukes. He's not going to invade Kuwait again. He's a known quantity and he's going to do what he's been doing all along: testing the boundaries of what he can get away with, pushing, prodding, looking for ways around. Containment is a valid strategy. Undermining him is a valid strategy. International isolation is a vlid strategy. Invading is a misguided and impatient endrun around those policies.

-Tom

[Jason Becker]

"I doubt they'd be much of a threat. He lacks the missiles to carry them, and according to the UN weapons inspectors,"

That statement had nothing to do with what your going off on. It was about how pre-emptive action WAS a good thing.

You also have no real proof as to wether he could ever have gotten a small nuke attached to a missle like a scud. If you want to bet thousands of lives on that educated guess(cause thats what it is), then I consider that pretty damn foolish.


Fact: The guy started a war with Iran, and invaded Kuwait.

Fact: They guy has shown he is more than willing to use these type of weapon in the past.

[William Harms]

Fact: They guy has shown he is more than willing to use these type of weapon in the past.

But he's only used them on groups of people who couldn't respond in kind. That's fundamentally different than him using WMD against the U.S. or any of our allies, because we can respond and he knows it.

[sparkman]

So what's to stop him from building a big nuke, putting it on a container ship, and sending it over to a US port city with a few more pissed off Saudi fundamentalists to set it off after docking? An overt attack on the US, no. Helping someone else do it? Sure.

That said, I see a few problems:

1) Our policy of "containment" has resulted in the Iraqi people being subjected to crappy standards of living for over a decade. Saddam, of course, blames the USA for this. This just rallies people behind him, since they blame the US for the hardships. And if the UN embargoes are causing hardship for the majority of Iraquis, well, that just creates thousands of young people with little to live for, indoctrinated on anti-US rhetoric since childhood, all ready to go out and give their life for jihad.

2) If the US attacks Iraq, it will be fodder any moslem fundamentalists looking to boost the size of their terrorist corps. Young devout moslems will have even more reason to want to destroy the Great Satan. Attacking Iraq will likely ENDANGER the American people at home (in addition to the soldiers, of course) because we could easily see a 10-fold increase in terrorist activity here.

Seems to me a nice, old-fashioned assassination of Saddam is a lot safer way for the government to handle this. Of course, that violates international law, but we haven't seemed concerned about that in the past year.

This is definitely a lose-lose situation for the American and Iraqi people both.

[Sharpe]

I'm not opposed to taking forceful action when it is needed and I certainly don't care for Saddam Hussein. However, I have two fairly serious concerns that I don't think the Bush administration has answered to my satisfaction:

1)Why now? There are many reasons why deposing Saddam would be a good thing, suchs as the FACTS outlined above. But the thing is, those facts have been true for 20 years. All of the reasons I've seen discussed (Saddam used poison gas vs his own Kurdish population, Saddam invaded Iran & Kuwait, Saddam stockpiled both poison gas & anthrax, Saddam has supported terrorism, etc etc) are true - but they've *been* true for years. All of those things were certainly true in 1991 when Bush the Elder declined to remove Saddam. Why the change now? I often feel that Bush the Younger wants to correct what he considers his father's big mistake. I have not yet seen any clear or convincing evidence that Saddam is an *imminent* threat to manufacture nukes, let alone use them (as previously stated by others I agree that deterrence HAS worked vs Saddam for the last 10 years). So bottom line, I am just not sold that Saddam is enough of a threat *now* to overcome the downsides to attacking him now: casualties, problems with oil, loss of civilian life in Iraq, increased tension with moderate Arabs, increased tension with Europe - these are all items that will either cost American lives, cost American dollars, or cost American political clout. I am just not convinced that the case for taking Saddam out overcomes the costs of doing the job.

2)What happens after Saddam? The bandwagon answer appears to be "Who cares! Saddam is such a bad guy, anything would be better!". Unfortunately that answer is extremely simplistic. First off, Iraq is not a unified nation on any kind of ethnic, cultural, religious or economic basis. It is a classic example of a "manufactured" nation carved out in the aftermath of the collapse of colonialism, similiar in some ways to Yugoslavia. You have Kurds in the north who tend to be rural, and many are nomadic. You have Shiite Arabs in the south, who tend to be farmers, and make up the bulk of the population. Much of the urban population is Sunni Arabs (who are the politically dominant group). And within these groups are different divisions: tribal and clan allegiances (especially amongst the Kurds); variations on Sunni & Shiite doctrine, differences between nomads & farmers, between farmers & townspeople, etc. And you have an economy with a lousy infrastructure, some oil, and a generally poorly educated populace. There are historical rivalries amongst some elements of the population that go back for many centuries. If Saddam is removed with no meaningful plan to replace him with a functioning democracy, a LOT can go wrong. A true collapse of Iraq as a nation would lead to a big territory going into anarchy (where terrorists could easily hide and train), and would likely also lead to the formation of Shiite and Kurdish splinter nations. Splinter nations is a huge danger to regional stability b/c there are sizable Kurdish & Shiite populations in neighboring countries like Turkey, Iran, Syria & Jordan - those nations are frightened that if splinter nations form, their own minorities will want to secede and join the splinters - which may lead to revolution and/or civil war in those neighboring countries. Alternatively, you might end up with a radical Shiite Iraqi state, much like Iran in 1980 - which would probably be about as bad as Saddam, certainly not much better. The problem is that getting to a stable, democratic Iraq is going to be *hard and expensive* - we're talking billions of aid to rebuild infrastructure and improve education, tens of thousands of peacekeeping troops for decades while the country is rebuilt. And if we don't have a coherent plan of how to rebuild Iraq then there is the strong risk of a descent to civil war and chaos, with American peacekeepers trapped in the middle.

So I'd like to see the Bush admin address both of these concerns before I'm willing to support the invasion of Iraq. Now if they can come up with credible evidence of an imminent threat or some indication of a hefty change in circumstances since 1991 (hefty enough to warrant invastion); AND if they put forward the kind of plan of national committment that would be required to rebuild Iraq afterward, then I'd be willing to support an invasion. But until then, I think we should focus on continuing to pursue Al Qaeda, we should try to capture, kill, or prove the prior death of Osama, Mullah Omar, etc, we should try to cripple Al Qaeda's finances, break up their cells, capture and try the remaining members, and in general shut them down. We should also focus on long term goals like better economies and better governments in the Middle East to prevent the future formation of new and even more evil versions of Al Qaeda.

Yes, we've been attacked, in a serious way. So yes, we have to hit back, and hit back HARD. But to quote Tom Clancy "Intelligence (in both senses of the word) is the greatest force multiplier" - we need to hit back in a smart way, at the right targets, and with the right goals. Here is a very fine series of articles from evolutionary theorist & writer Robert Wright - I think he has some good points to make:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2070210&entry=2070211

Daniel Ban (aka Sharpe)

[Tom Chick]

Daniel,

First of all, you completely undermined the credibility of your post by closing with a Tom Clancy quote. :) However, this...


2)What happens after Saddam?

...is the $64,000 question. It's also, I believe, why some of the more level headed hawks in Washington aren't hopping on the bandwagon with Bush. As Alexis De Tocqueville pointed out a long time ago, two of the hardest things for a democracy to do are to get into a war and to get out of a war.

I'm sure Tom Clancy said something just as trenchant, but I don't have a copy of Sum of All Fears handy.

-Tom

[Jason McCullough]

So what's to stop him from building a big nuke, putting it on a container ship, and sending it over to a US port city with a few more pissed off Saudi fundamentalists to set it off after docking? An overt attack on the US, no. Helping someone else do it? Sure.

Well, for Saddam to do this and think he could get away with it, he'd need to be confident that we couldn't find any evidence he was behind it. It'd be wildly irrational for Saddam to do this, as it's almost certain we'd be able to trace it back to him to some extent. I mean, all you have to is find a single link between the terrorist group and a nuclear power.

[sparkman]

So what's to stop him from building a big nuke, putting it on a container ship, and sending it over to a US port city with a few more pissed off Saudi fundamentalists to set it off after docking? An overt attack on the US, no. Helping someone else do it? Sure.

Well, for Saddam to do this and think he could get away with it, he'd need to be confident that we couldn't find any evidence he was behind it. It'd be wildly irrational for Saddam to do this, as it's almost certain we'd be able to trace it back to him to some extent. I mean, all you have to is find a single link between the terrorist group and a nuclear power.

Sure, because after a terrorist nuclear explosion there'd be all kinds of evidence as to who was behind it, right? :-/

A lot of it depends on Saddam's situation, too. With a big target painted on his forehead, how concerned will he remain about his well-being?

[Met_K]

So what's to stop him from building a big nuke, putting it on a container ship, and sending it over to a US port city with a few more pissed off Saudi fundamentalists to set it off after docking? An overt attack on the US, no. Helping someone else do it? Sure.

Well, for Saddam to do this and think he could get away with it, he'd need to be confident that we couldn't find any evidence he was behind it. It'd be wildly irrational for Saddam to do this, as it's almost certain we'd be able to trace it back to him to some extent. I mean, all you have to is find a single link between the terrorist group and a nuclear power.

SHUT. THE FUCK. UP.

[Tom Chick]

Wow, caps and bold face. Jason, did you kill Met_K's dog or something?

-Tom

[Met_K]

Wow, caps and bold face. Jason, did you kill Met_K's dog or something?

No, but everytime he opens his mouth, I feel as if there's this invisible hand that is scooping my brain out of my head with a giant spork. A giant plastic spork. That breaks easily. Leaving chunks in my brain. But it's all invisible, so that I could never really know. But I feel it, man, I feel it.

[Jason McCullough]

Apparently.

Heck, we found lots of evidence on 9/11, in spite of the hijackers being vapor. Sure, we knew their names, but there was enough intelligence chatter intercepted regarding the attack that I don't think it would have made a difference.

[Tom Chick]

No, but everytime he opens his mouth, I feel as if there's this invisible hand that is scooping my brain out of my head with a giant spork.

And so you're reading this thread because...? :)

Personally, I find McCullough a pretty engaging message boarder, whether I agree with him or not.

-Tom

[Met_K]

And so you're reading this thread because...? :)

Personally, I find McCullough a pretty engaging message boarder, whether I agree with him or not.

But that's the point, Tom. He's so engaging because his opinions are so utterly filled with non-stop stupidity that you could fill an entire .com boardroom with it. Shit, Jason makes all of Westwood's design decisions since 1997 look smart. Gord could fill up an entire book based on things that Jason has said.

Jason's a smart guy. I like what he has to say---OUTSIDE of politics. On the old board, that's the only posts of his I ever skipped. After the Vietnam debate, I thought I had finally met someone who's political stupidity made the Grateful Dead look like a bunch of CNN analysts. It's really bad. But outside of that...

And I'm reading this thread because it's quite nice. Smart people discussing smart topics. If politics could be considered smart, that is. ;)

[Jason McCullough]

And so you're reading this thread because...? :)

Personally, I find McCullough a pretty engaging message boarder, whether I agree with him or not.

But that's the point, Tom. He's so engaging because his opinions are so utterly filled with non-stop stupidity that you could fill an entire .com boardroom with it. Shit, Jason makes all of Westwood's design decisions since 1997 look smart. Gord could fill up an entire book based on things that Jason has said.

Jason's a smart guy. I like what he has to say---OUTSIDE of politics. On the old board, that's the only posts of his I ever skipped. After the Vietnam debate, I thought I had finally met someone who's political stupidity made the Grateful Dead look like a bunch of CNN analysts. It's really bad. But outside of that...

And I'm reading this thread because it's quite nice. Smart people discussing smart topics. If politics could be considered smart, that is. ;)

fart

[Anonymous]

Yawn.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I'm not sure where I stand on this Iraq thing. I was firmly behind the 1990-91 operation because the purpose was clear. With each passing week, this operation becomes even muddier.

If the problem is weapons of mass destruction that Saddam could use against the US or its allies, then the deterrence question makes a lot of sense. My former thesis supervisor argued that Saddam was undeterrable, but she has major problems with the logic of deterrence from the get go. After all, it's not clear that the Soviets were deterred from anything. If Saddam prizes his survival more than he prizes hurting the US or Israel then he will likely not use WMD on them without great provocation or certainty of painless success.

If the problem is WMD falling into the hands of terrorists or others who hate the US and her allies, then Pakistan's nukes are probably a bigger concern than Iraq's gas. Terrorists can make their own chemical weapons if it's as easy as Rumsfeld says it is, and a control freak like Saddam isn't keen on freelancers. After all, his attempted assassination of Bush I in 1993 in Kuwait wasn't done through a proxy group, but by people under the command of Iraqi intelligence.

If the problem is that Saddam is a bad and unstable ruler who cannot be trusted to behave rationally with WMD, then North Korea is the next logical stop if this is going to be a doctrine of some kind. Naturally, the geopolitics of an attack on North Korea are considerably more complicated.

The UN resolution is a brilliant first move, though it could certainly hamstring the administration if not crafted properly. Bush is saying to America, "Inspections or not, Saddam has to go." so he can't just get another resolution on inspections though this is what Russia is pushing for. Pre-emption without gross provocation is a difficult business and the casus belli is not clear here - yet.

I'm willing to be convinced, and Blair will release a dossier soon that might clear this up.

Troy

[Jason Becker]

"Heck, we found lots of evidence on 9/11, in spite of the hijackers being vapor. Sure, we knew their names, but there was enough intelligence chatter intercepted regarding the attack that I don't think it would have made a difference."


Ohh gee. So if Saddam gets his hands on a nuke. Decides he can't use it personally and gives it to Al-Quada, then they use it in a US city or somewhere else and kill thousands(maybe tens with radiation poisening) of people with it. We though have the tech to trace it back to him. Ohh boy then he's in trouble.


Wow I feel so much better...

[Jason McCullough]

"Heck, we found lots of evidence on 9/11, in spite of the hijackers being vapor. Sure, we knew their names, but there was enough intelligence chatter intercepted regarding the attack that I don't think it would have made a difference."


Ohh gee. So if Saddam gets his hands on a nuke. Decides he can't use it personally and gives it to Al-Quada, then they use it in a US city or somewhere else and kill thousands(maybe tens with radiation poisening) of people with it. We though have the tech to trace it back to him. Ohh boy then he's in trouble.

Wow I feel so much better...

The point was that because we can trace it back to him, he won't do it. Unless he's suicidal, which there's no evidence of.

If it's such an attractive option, how come the USSR never did it?

[Tyjenks]

I am not entirely sure what to think. Attacking now certainly seems hasty as we have only sparse evidence at best against him as to what he has in his hand. OTOH, he won't let UN inspectors in and so he must have something he cannot shift easily around.

He needs to be ousted and I frankly do not know how long we can wait before he, if not directly, at least indirectly aids in an attack of any kind, be it military bombings or terrorism. I do not believe we can afford to wait until he kills more Americans for proof.

Sufficed to say, I am glad I am not the one making those decisions, but I am not sure I want Bush making them either.

The point of my post: Ummm....I guess none. Can I vote Undecided or Other on this one?

[sparkman]

The point was that because we can trace it back to him, he won't do it.
What makes you think we could trace a nuke back to him? Ever read a detailed description of what happens during a nuclear explosion?


Unless he's suicidal, which there's no evidence of.
Apparently he isn't, given that he just OK'd inspectors. However, if he knew his death was imminent anyway (given, say, oh, I don't know, a USA call for his head on a stick), what would have have to lose?


If it's such an attractive option, how come the USSR never did it?
Do you really not see the difference between the situation with the USSR and the situation with Iraq and other middle-eastern states? Honestly?

At any rate, Saddam says inspectors can come in. Bush is now saying "we don't take what Saddam says at face value." (In other words, he's probably pacing around his office with steam coming out of his ears saying "but DADDY got a war with Iraq!") (Actually, I take that back. He doesn't work past 4 pm.)

[Jason McCullough]

We intercepted lots of intelligence chatter about 9/11 both before and after 9/11, so I have no idea why we'd be completely in the dark for a nuclear event. And for Saddam to do something like that, he'd have to be damn sure we couldn't find out anything about where the bomb came from; it wouldn't take more than the thinnest of pretexts for the U.S. to take him out in such a situation.

The only way his death would be imminent and he'd lash out with WMD is if.....we threaten him with his imminent death! It's circular; we don't go after him, he doesn't nuke as a last-ditch gambit.

And no, I don't see any reason the USSR is deterrable, but Saddam isn't. Do you? Every explanation I've seen out there is based on an assumption he's a suicidal megalomaniac, which isn't the case.

It'll be fun watching the hawks try to justify a war anyway ("he doesn't give the inspectors enough coffee!"), agreed.

[Tom Chick]

It'll be fun watching the hawks try to justify a war anyway

There was an article in the LA Times yesterday about Scott Ritter, a former UN inspector in Iraq who serves as a sort of Presidential gadfly to whomever is in office. In the article, someone posed the question of what Bush would do when Hussein inevitably gives in and allows inspections to resume.

"What's Bush going to do, go to war when the inspectors have to wait in the parking lot for 15 minutes?"

I think this whole invasion thing is now a dead issue for all intents and purposes. Bush gave Hussein an out and, whaddaya know, he took it! How's that for undeterrable?

Color me unsurprised.

-Tom

[Bub, Andrew]

He's been taking every out given since he failed to take that "get out of Kuwait" out from Bush Sr. The problem is that he stalls, backpedals, and undermines the effort. Pushing as hard as he can and buying time whenever possible. "Unconditional inspections"? Um... hello? He's promised that a few times before. There's really no reason to believe him now. The good thing is, at least we seem to have him rattled.

[asspennies]

Whether you believe Iraq or not, you have to give credit where credit is due.

Iraq would have NEVER accepted inspections were it not for Bush's speech to the UN. Whatever you think of Bush, the timing and content of the speech was pure brilliance. (Chalk it up to his advisors if you still insist that Bush is an idiot)

This totally turned the tables on Iraq, and started the international ball rolling in an entirely different direction. Iraq had no choice once the French and the Saudis started agreeing to go in under UN auspices. They had no refuge at all.

If war is prevented because of all this, that's a good thing, right? If we actually get to send inspectors in there, then Bush did exactly what you guys wanted him to do. I don't think the allusions to Bush prancing around the Oval Office like a 5-year-old really hold up - especially because rattleing the sabers to back Iraq into a corner may have been his plan all along. Perhaps he KNEW this would happen.

I wouldn't put it past him (or, if you must, his administration).

[Jason McCullough]

Whether you believe Iraq or not, you have to give credit where credit is due.

Iraq would have NEVER accepted inspections were it not for Bush's speech to the UN. Whatever you think of Bush, the timing and content of the speech was pure brilliance. (Chalk it up to his advisors if you still insist that Bush is an idiot)

This totally turned the tables on Iraq, and started the international ball rolling in an entirely different direction. Iraq had no choice once the French and the Saudis started agreeing to go in under UN auspices. They had no refuge at all.

If war is prevented because of all this, that's a good thing, right? If we actually get to send inspectors in there, then Bush did exactly what you guys wanted him to do. I don't think the allusions to Bush prancing around the Oval Office like a 5-year-old really hold up - especially because rattleing the sabers to back Iraq into a corner may have been his plan all along. Perhaps he KNEW this would happen.

I wouldn't put it past him (or, if you must, his administration).

"If the president fell flat on his face in the middle of the Rose Garden some of these characters would applaud his uncanny foresight in having arranged for the ground to be in just the right place to break his descent. Shades of the personality cult."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0203.html#091602138am

[Tyjenks]

Whether you believe Iraq or not, you have to give credit where credit is due.

Iraq would have NEVER accepted inspections were it not for Bush's speech to the UN. Whatever you think of Bush, the timing and content of the speech was pure brilliance. (Chalk it up to his advisors if you still insist that Bush is an idiot)

This totally turned the tables on Iraq, and started the international ball rolling in an entirely different direction. Iraq had no choice once the French and the Saudis started agreeing to go in under UN auspices. They had no refuge at all.

If war is prevented because of all this, that's a good thing, right? If we actually get to send inspectors in there, then Bush did exactly what you guys wanted him to do. I don't think the allusions to Bush prancing around the Oval Office like a 5-year-old really hold up - especially because rattleing the sabers to back Iraq into a corner may have been his plan all along. Perhaps he KNEW this would happen.

I wouldn't put it past him (or, if you must, his administration).

I agree. Bush got shit stirred up around the world and many countries changed their tunes. How and why does not matter to me, but I think I will put a gold star in the Bush column today.

[sparkman]

Whatever you think of Bush, the timing and content of the speech was pure brilliance.

At least you didn't say "the delivery." I don't know where I cringed more... "Nuk-u-lar" or "Should, God forbids..."

It's really sad when the CIC's speech delivery would get him a C in high school speech class.

I loved Stephen Colbert on the Daily Show's analysis: "John, think about it. Bush says Saddam could be working on NUKE-U-LAR weapons. You know what that leads to next: NU-CLE-AR weapons!"

And as for Bush achieving his goals, apparently not:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20020917/D7M38DF80.html

They're ignoring the Iraqi letter. Bush's goal appears to be dropping a bomb on the head of the bad man who tried to kill his daddy.

[asspennies]

"If the president fell flat on his face in the middle of the Rose Garden some of these characters would applaud his uncanny foresight in having arranged for the ground to be in just the right place to break his descent. Shades of the personality cult."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0203.html#091602138am

And should he do everything right, and accomplish what even the far left wants him to accomplish, he would still be branded as a buffoon and a simpleton incapable of dressing himself. Shades of manic-depressive denial on the part of the opposition.

Two can play at this stupid sniping game.

[asspennies]

Whatever you think of Bush, the timing and content of the speech was pure brilliance.

At least you didn't say "the delivery." I don't know where I cringed more... "Nuk-u-lar" or "Should, God forbids..."

It's really sad when the CIC's speech delivery would get him a C in high school speech class.

No argument here - the guy don't speak real good. It's a checkmark against him in my book and in many others.

Still, if you listen to what he's saying and not how he says it (which I readily admit could very much be his administration talking with him as the slightly ineffective mouthpiece) what comes out is usually very smart and well thought out. Whether it's right or wrong is for your political leanings to decide.

I'd also like to point out that he's generally well-liked when it comes to statesmanship. He seems to have quite warm relationships with Tony Blair and Vladamir Putin among others. Sure, it could be his "aw, shucks" cowboy charm, but something tells me there's more to statesmanship then pronouncing every word correctly.


I loved Stephen Colbert on the Daily Show's analysis: "John, think about it. Bush says Saddam could be working on NUKE-U-LAR weapons. You know what that leads to next: NU-CLE-AR weapons!"
Saw it and laughed a good bit. NUKE-U-LAR is one of those things that always pissed me off.



And as for Bush achieving his goals, apparently not:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20020917/D7M38DF80.html

They're ignoring the Iraqi letter. Bush's goal appears to be dropping a bomb on the head of the bad man who tried to kill his daddy.
Oh, there's very little doubt in my mind Bush will still go ahead with the war plans. This "letter" from Iraq won't deter him in the slightest, most likely.

Still, what surprises me (or maybe it doesn't) is that you don't see people against Bush saying "Ok, you got this far, now knock it off!" Instead, you see them treating Bush as a demagog even as he has managed to accomplish exactly what the opposition wanted him to accomplish - get Iraq to reneg on inspections.

[Jason McCullough]

It was a joke, asspennies. There's seriously people out there who spin Bush's actions as a "masterstroke" anytime he does a complete 180 (like caving on the creation of a department of homeland security).

[Toddy]

I guess he could nuke himself. Without an effective means of delivery, nuclear weapons aren't particularly useful (I guess one could argue that they aren't particularly useful even with an effective means of delivery, but that's another argument). If he has them at all; most sources outside the Bush cabinet (and one within) seem to think that he doesn't.

Tell that to Robert Wright, who made the quite believable prediction a few months ago on Slate that the inevitable consequence of what's going on right now in Israel/Palestine is someone getting a suitcase-style nuke into Tel Aviv or a major American city within the next decade. The craziest thing about this Bush brinksmanship is that the scenario he's trying to stop is unstoppable. Someone will use these dreaded weapons of mass destruction on a civilian population at some point, no matter who's ruling Baghdad. Resorting to military means to delay this from taking place will only ensure that it will happen all the sooner.

I think Warren Zevon summed the whole thing up when he sang "Whoooaaahhhh, Jerusalem."

[Bub, Andrew]

Wait Brett! What about Missile Defense? Won't that stop suitcase nukes too?

Oh, sad news, I just read that Warren Zevon is dying of cancer.

[Chris Floyd]

Here's a phrase I don't get to say very often: I'm with asspennies.

The fact is, Bush's speech, the rumors of attack plans, and the international fear of unilateralism paved the way for Bush to spur the UN into action (ouch, mixed metaphors). I was astounded this morning to hear Koffi Annan, et al. saying that Iraq's "offer" to allow weapons inspectors in was a "triumph for diplomacy." How inane is that? Iraq decides (again) to acquiesce to UN resolutions that have been standing for years, unenforced, and all of a sudden it's a great day for international cooperation? The threats of US attack not only have pushed Iraq to make their "offer," but also made the UN finally address the situation.

And that situation is bad. It's been bad since long before 9/11. Not just bad for the United States, but profoundly bad for the people of Iraq, and (I believe) profoundly bad for Israel. And yet the UN is more worried about the US acting unilaterally than keeping a known thug and murderer from gaining the ability to hurt thousands of people at a time.

And the insanity continues -- why in God's name would ANY reasonable UN representative believe that Iraq's offer means anything at this point? How many times has Iraq had inspectors in and out? Perhaps Iraq will really act on this decision, but we quite clearly don't know if it will yet or how long it will last. Saddam has used this VERY effectively as a stalling tactic in the past when the threat of reinvasion was immanent. Why is this time different?

I'm constantly amazed at how a conservative president has garnered skepticism so intense, from not just the liberal and moderate public but also from the international community, that it outweighs the skepticism that is displayed toward a bloodthirsty dictator.

[Jason McCullough]

"Worry about Bush" vs. "Worry about Saddam with WMD" is a false tradeoff. When it comes to war, it's "worry about Saddam with WMD" vs. "worry about what the effects of an invasion will be."

[Brian Rucker]

I think it has something to do with a pro-actively, unilaterally, militaristic USA being more destabilizing to the world community than some penny-ante dictator who's just one among many with WMD but too scared to use them against the interests of western powers (who'd in turn pulverize him). Saddam's easy to cow but who's going to intimidate an enraged Bushzilla into behaving responsibly? Where do the consequences of this policy take us? What's the next target? What unintended consequences will arise?

That's why we're the scarey ones to folks outside the US.

[Dave Long]

The cowboy gunslinger persona of Bush doesn't help matters any.

--Dave

[Anonymous]

Food for thought:

Sunday Herald, U.K.
September 15, 2002
Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President

By Neil Mackay

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.
This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.
The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'&
Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.
'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'


It s not about weapons of mass destruction:
Washington Post
In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue
U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool
By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 15, 2002; Page A01
A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.
Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.
The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush's call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad.
"It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power.

[DennyA]

That British article's interesting. If anything, it shows the perceptions many outside of America have about American intentions outside our borders, whether those perceptions are valid or not.

The scary thing is the sheer number of Americans who have NO idea why anyone outside our country would hate us.

[Bub, Andrew]

Yes!
On Sept. 11th, on local talk radio, person after person called in saying "Why do they hate us?" "What did we ever do?" "How come nobody knows why they hate us?" "Why?"

Finally I sorta scared my wife by screaming "Why haven't you watched TV or read a fucking magazine in the last 12 months?" at the radio. It made me feel better.

[Chris Floyd]

So, a British newspaper uncovers a plan for US GLOBAL DOMINATION and the story is that Bush has been planning to attack Iraq since before he was president?

"Free Press" (if that is your REAL name), for the safety of yourself and others, please put down your Sunday Herald and your Michael Moore books and your "Re-Elect Cynthia McKinney" signage and spend some time in reality.

[Brian Rucker]

I don't know anything about that particular think tank or whether this report even exists. Even if it does, there's no reason to assume any of the intended recipients even read it much less agreed.

That said, this is very much in line with what's being called 'neo-conservative' thinking and this philosophy does have influential adherents in the administration. It's a weird mix of real politik, strategic, pragmatism and wide-eyed idealism. There are probably other folks who could better comment on the movement than myself but the gist of the thinking is that the USA and 'American values' must continue to dominate the global scene as they express the best of what humanity has evolved into over history. There's a sense of manifest destiny, and just a little less truth than arrogance, in some of their concerns and goals. However, as with most ideologies, even nobly intentioned ones, there's a strong sense that the ends justify the means.

The major 'future super power' is China. The goal is positioning the United States to isolate, and if necessary, militarily overwhelm the country before it can economically dominate the region, and perhaps, the world. One major concern for us industrially and militarily is control of oil more than any other resource. While imports from the Persian Gulf make up only a fraction of our domestic intake exports to other countries, often managed by US corporations, their subsidiaries overseas or US partnerships with foreign corporations, are quite huge. Disruptions in the supply could have a great impact in the global economy, and thus indirectly on our own - not to mention the direct impact US energy industry. Besides the daily exports abroad, the Persian Gulf has the greatest reserves of oil in the world. If there is a major, protracted, war between the US and any other major power control of these reserves would be crucial.

So we get to the sideshow. Iraq. Neoconservatives want to take Iraq out. They believe that we can install a democratic government there that will serve as an example to others in the Arab world. They foresee populations rising against their admittedly oppressive governments and installing democracies of their own once the, inevitably superior, concept of democracy has a safe foothold in the region. And, the real politik strain in neoconservative thinking recognises that hostile regimes might supplant proto-democracies or just seize power outright. In those cases 'coming to the defense' of the fallen governments or to protect 'international interests' (oil exports) will give us justification to position yet more troops in the region. Over time, it's a win-win, they think. Arab populations get democracy and a better distribution of wealth and improved education. Meanwhile, of course, we get the oil and we don't have to worry about troublesome flunkies anymore (the extremism exporting Saudis and all the other militaristic Arab states threatening Israel).

There's alot here to like - if we really believed for a second it would work. The fact that the administration appears to be pursuing this goal in an underhanded fasion, if it is really pursuing this goal, points to lack of faith in the premise. And we only have to look back as far as the Victorian Empire to see how a mixture of idealism, bringing civilization to the savages, and pure economic exploitation work out for a power. They didn't even have to worry about Zulus and Indians forming terrorist groups capable of exporting suitcase nukes. And the result of the experiment with fully unleashed, unrestricted, capitalism resulted all manner of exploitation - ultimately in the creation of Marxism and Communism, and anti-colonial revolutions, by way of a popular response.

We only have to look as far as the reaction of the pro-Democracy activists in Egypt to our attempts to 'help' them to understand that exploitation and moral idealism don't mix. We're seen as the power that supports corrupt regimes in the region as well as the defenders of the very unpopular Israel. If we speak out in support of a group, even a group that shares our highest ideals, they're immediately seen as suspect by the population because of the damage we've done to our own reputation over the last half century. Our economic interests, and the extremely scummy flunkie governments we've both propped up and seen blame us for their problems, have made any perception of us as a liberating nation offering the fruits of democracy and freedom highly dubious. Imagine how they'll feel after the anarchy and suffering envisioned by the neoconservatives, as a necessary means to a necessary end, sets in.

We should encourage democratic movements, absolutely, and do it much more than we have in the past. However, we also need to police ourselves and how we prosecute our economic interests overseas. We need to set an example that will last as an eternal example of good government and enlightened policies. In the long run, it won't be a defeated and humiliated China that we trample but a China lead by individuals inspired by those highest ideals we should welcome into the world community.

Anything else is a recipie for hubris and the usual Greek tragedy that follows.

[Jason McCullough]

'The major 'future super power' is China. The goal is positioning the United States to isolate, and if necessary, militarily overwhelm the country before it can economically dominate the region, and perhaps, the world.'

I can't figure out why anyone expects China to remain unfriendly. The communist government has to go eventually, and the richer the country gets the less likely they are to put up with it.

[Bub, Andrew]

More food for thought,
the slippery concessions made by Iraq.
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2071086

FWIW I'm with you in optimism over China Jason.

[Brian Rucker]

I don't think the neoconservatives necessarily care whether China is capitalist or communist, oligarchic or democratic - what they want to do is continue to assure American primacy in all arenas and the moral justification for that is the success, and the virtue, of our system of government and economic model (as defined by the neoconservatives).

[Dave Long]

On a simpler level...I'm most concerned with the lack of production of goods within the US anymore. What happens if we end up the isolated state? Where will everything we currently "need" come from? It seems our own people (heads of major US corporations) are selling the country down the river. We've had major production closing where I live for the last three years. Lucent spun off Agere and now that's all closing and consolidating to Florida with the intention of leaving the US entirely (and being sold in the process). Dana Corporation moved all their production out of Reading leaving another huge dormant factory. It's been going on like this for years.

A specific example... Agere laid off the workers in their clean room because they claimed they weren't needed. Then they turned around and brought in immigrants...literally importing people...to do those same jobs for half the pay or less. What does that say for and to the American worker?

While global tension is high, the tension here should be equally so. We're being sold out. I really feel like the people have lost control of their representation. Democracy as we knew it even 20 years ago has changed to representation of the corporations and not the people. The flaw in the thinking of these neoconservatives is that we've got it all right. I don't think that's close to the case anymore.

*sigh*

--Dave

[Met_K]

Dave, while I realize that yes, democracy has taken a huge fall in the last 20 years, it's a bad assumption to think that we've had control of it up until then.

The truth of the matter is that this country has been in the process of being sold out since the Civil War ended. After Lincoln died, the republicans of the time sold us out to the corporations. It wasn't until Roosevelt came along that we actually had someone who would stand up for something. Then, his two underlings completely fucked things up, so that he had to come back. Kennedy was okay, so was Nixon. But hell! We don't need 'okay' Presidents, we need 'good' Presidents.

And -nothing- will ever make up for the Ford/Carter/Reagan mistake. Those three should have -never- been President. They're about as qualified to run this country as I am to successfully argue politics.

The point being, this country has been fucked for the last 150 years. The last 20 have only begun to be the worst.

[Jason McCullough]

Dave, the 19th century railroads were built largely through British investment. There's this myth going around where the US used to produce everything, when it acutality that only happened in the post-WWII wreckage.

[Brian Rucker]

Okay, kudos to Free Press. He anticipated the new "Bush Doctrine" with his post. So, Pax America or what?

[Anonymous]

"The major 'future super power' is China. The goal is positioning the United States to isolate, and if necessary, militarily overwhelm the country before it can economically dominate the region, and perhaps, the world."

Fucking Communists.

"I can't figure out why anyone expects China to remain unfriendly. The communist government has to go eventually, and the richer the country gets the less likely they are to put up with it."

China will be about as friendly as the USA has been. Most Chinese are still very, very poor without consistent electricity or water. Yes, the Communists will be gone but don't expect democracy or even the kind of socialism that exists in England and the rest of Europe. China will become a superpower, but by that time, many of us on this board will be dead and the rest old men and women. The USA can still be a contending Superpower, I just don't see how considering it's current course. I really can't get past that Bush43's cronies are doing this for non-altruistic reasons. If there is nothing else that can be said about Clinton, you can say that he tried to broker peace, not war.

[Dirt]

The above Guest is me.

[Anonymous]

"And should he do everything right, and accomplish what even the far left wants him to accomplish, he would still be branded as a buffoon and a simpleton incapable of dressing himself. Shades of manic-depressive denial on the part of the opposition."

Yeah, right. Watch this and tell me that the Bush's reputation is undeserved:

http://www.comedycentral.com/includes/rpmdirect.jhtml?ram=dailyshow/headlines/7034_headline_300.rm

Open your eyes. The man is an idiot.

[Met_K]

The Daily Show is the end-all, be-all television show. Ever.