Antiwar protests increase probability of war

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Referring delicately to the "present difficulty we're having with Iraq," Clinton cautioned, "It is not a replay of what happened in 1991. It is a forerunner of what could or could not happen in 2010, 2020, in 2030."
He understands the danger, underestimates the time-frame. And notice, tw, he disagrees with you; even Clinton knew Hussein had dangerous stuff, in 1998:

Why do you, like George Jr, view everything only in terms of "black and white". One who only reads in "black and white" could not see how Clinton and tw both state the same conclusion. Furthermore, Saddam is no threat to anyone and avoids all conflict with America - contrary to a president who promotes hate, fear, and religious intolerance.

Once was a famous psychological experiment where a 3rd grade teacher told kids that blue eyed people were superior. The experiment demonstrated how linear, myopic, and unilateral the kids would become when instructed how to hate and fear. Also what that business president discovered just before taking his whole staff to Germany on a sales trip. George Jr has turned what should be intelligent people into mindless 'veins hanging from teeth' militants by advocating hate and fear combined with outright lies. Why do I see this? I was just as foolish in VietNam days as so many here are about Iraq. I was one so easily manipulated by a lying president back then just as UT now sees things only in "black and white" today. However unlike UT, I kept having doubts then because a criminal president stated everything in "black and white".

Most dangerous event for a policeman is trying to break up a domestic fight. Until Saddam becomes a threat to his neighbors, then instead he is not a threat to anyone. Saddam never becomes a threat to America; unless that world policemen decides to intervene prematurely. Clinton also understood that reality. Washington Post article forgets to mention that part or the part about how US aircraft carriers were useless if Saddam's neighbors were not threatened - as I demonstrated in a post entitled "In the Navy, You can spend a Pretty Dime...".

This time, the US is not even a policeman. A policeman is empowered by citizens. The US will attack Iraq as a vigilante who acts criminally. The US has no madate to act as a policeman and is outrightly opposed everywhere in the world. Even in Eastern Europe and Japan is somewhere between 57 and 80+% against a unilateral US attack. These are landslide numbers! George Jr does not care and has said so. He will make America a world criminal only because he wants revenge on Saddam - no matter what destruction to the US. Even those WMD are only an excuse - which is why George Jr does not want Hans Blix and his inspectors to succeed.

This would explain why George Jr fanatics are so critical of Hans Blix. They want war as if war will always solves everything. Myopia based in part because some people only see solutions in violence. Did they read Pentagon Papers? Of course not. Like George Jr, they fear and must childessly insult anything they can't comprehend because it is 'too long'.

If Saddam is left alone, then he is either toppled; he is defanged by weapons inspectors; he is attacked by his neighbors; or he attacks a neighbor, shows his hand, and is destroyed by attacks from entire world. The only bad scenario is one advocated by George Jr - unilateral, unprovoked attack by US on a soverign nation for not one good reason. Expect recession and a reduced standard of living because a mental midget president does not care what he spends or destroys to execute a personal vendetta against Saddam.

[Griff]

If tw were an an-cap this would be right in his wheelhouse.

[Undertoad]

A few days after Powell's presentation, another presentation was given to NATO which was, apparently, twice as damning. Behind closed doors the intel information could flow a little more freely.

On Saddam's neighbors who find him charming polite and friendly and easy to work with -- does that include Israel?

Does that include the people within his own nation such as the Kurds and Shias? Do they not count because they're within his borders? Is he allowed to do whatever he likes to his own people?

Are the newly-found longer range missiles allowed? Should Saddam be punished for building these missiles which he is in theory not allowed to have? If he decides not to destroy them, what should the international response be?

If the US didn't have 5 aircraft carriers in the gulf, would Saddam go along with the inspections which found these missiles? If no, should the US continue to threaten force during an extended version of the inspections? If yes, why did he not cooperate with years upon years of inspections ending in 1998?

Iraq is directly supporting terrorists who are attacking other countries besides the US. Is that OK? Can the international community address that matter? (Why has it not done so?)

Let's pretend for a moment that Iraq really does threaten American security. Setting aside France, the US's ability to address that problem may rest on its ability to convince Cameroon to vote with it. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

Does Blix have any reason to question the notion that his inspections are being scuttled? Does that affect his credibility to you? Is Blix more credible than Powell?

Do you believe that Blix's discovery of forbidden items is an indicator that inspections are working, or that they are NOT working?

If an administration acted in bad faith 30 years ago, is that proof positive that the current administration is acting in bad faith? If past acts of bad faith constitute a resume by which ones current administration should be judged, what does that say about Hussein's Baath party administration? What does it say about Clinton? Do you believe the Baaths over the Republicans? What about the vast majority of legislators who voted in favor of Clinton's "regime change" policy in 1998?

[Undertoad]

Oh and one more thing. The more I think about this, the dumber it gets:

Even in Eastern Europe and Japan is somewhere between 57 and 80+% against a unilateral US attack. These are landslide numbers!

This is arguing around the point, which is intellectually dishonest.

Someone framed a question that could get such a majority opinion and is reporting it as honest opinion. This kind of crap happens all the time. Mostly it happens around the abortion debate, where both sides routinely ask different kinds of questions to get majorities, and then claim that they have majority support.

How could one get such a bogus majority in Eastern Europe and Japan? Start by asking a question about a situation that doesn't exist. Any proposed action hasn't been "unilateral" since, well, about six months ago. The debate shifted, and the anti-war movement failed to follow the shift.

Eastern Europe is PART of the non-unilateral approach. Eastern Europe is in FAVOR of the approach partly because they WERE asked and DID have input into the situation. That re-framed France and Germany's position as being EVEN MORE UNILATERAL than the US position.

So when you currently ask eastern Europe whether the action should be unilateral, the question you are asking is whether or not their FAVORABLE opinion should be CONSULTED. It WAS and IS consulted, so there is no unilateralism and the entire point is moot. Not moot enough for the New York Times, I guess?

What happens when you ask a more reasonable question, such as "Should Hussein be forcibly removed from power?" you would, I'm certain, get majority support for that answer in eastern Europe. Unlike their buddies in "old" Europe, the eastern Europeans are quite familiar with tyranny and what life is like under it.

Lastly, any question that presumes a majority is, of course, ignoring the majority that really counts: Iraqis. Their opinion on the matter has been consulted and 100% of them want Hussein to remain in power. That tells you all you really need to know: that Hussein's "sovereignty" has been established via the exercise of brutal force against his own people.

[jaguar]

you sound like tw UT.
No, really.
A few minor points.

The US until very recently still seemed to be taking the line that if the UN would not let the US defend the power of the UN, the US would do it anyway (ah! The irony). Sounds kind of unilateral to me. The last time i heard that directly (not that i've been following *that* closely was the state of union address.

I"m not entirely sure what your point is...you seem to be saying, on the assumption that the question was rigged, that weighting survey questions is bad. You then give a weighted one yourself. huh?

Other issues: You know the kurds don't seem to like the Americans all that much in the end. No idea why....
I don't find 'aparantly' and 'behind closed doors' a good way to justify a war (we can, we just can't tell you for 40 years, trust us, we're your government, we'd never commit to unethical, bloodthirty war without good reason!). If the US didn't have 5 carriers, unpteen troops, tanks, and support infrastructure moving into the gulf months ago would the world maybe believe the US gave a damn about the opinion of other nations?

Oh, could you please list off what blix has found so far?

[Undertoad]

The US would/will do it anyway with the multilateral participation of a score of other nations, including the troops and/or direct involvement of at least seven other nations, including your own as well as at least UK, Italy, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, and Israel; as well as the approving nod of about 20 others including Spain, the eastern bloc of 10, etc.

[Undertoad]

On what Blix has found: you appear to be under the impression, as are many other people, that the process of inspections is supposed to actively find and remove weapons from Iraq.

What the inspectors are actually supposed to do is to *confirm* Hussein's disarmnament.

It's OK, I didn't understand that either -- until Blix's first report, where he confirmed that as of that point Hussein was not disarming. His critical point, during that first report, was explaining that the Iraqis were supposed to cooperate by showing them evidence of the VX gas they had disposed of, taking them to the incinerator they used, showing them the records of how their anthrax deposits were killed, talking to the scientists who oversaw that, etc.

Blix noted that, when South Africa decided to disarm themselves of their nuclear program, they invited the inspectors in and documented it all, meticulously and completely. They proved to the world that they had done it.

Then Blix said that Hussein is not complying that way.

Blix's inspections are not designed to be a game of hide -n- seek where if they don't find anything Iraq "wins". They aren't enforced inspections. For a few days France considered proposing putting UN troops in Iraq to actually do real, enforced inspections. But they didn't go anywhere with that idea, because they knew it wouldn't work anyway; the moment an inspector asks to enter one of the presidential palaces with the threat of force, that ruse would end, and probably painfully.

Anyway, it looks like Saddam might insist on keeping his "disallowed" longer-range missiles despite them having being "found" by the inspectors.

What Blix found as of Jan 28

Full text of Powell speech

[Undertoad]

Oh, and as far as sounding like tw, it's just because I'm suddenly taking 8 paragraphs to make my point.

Sorry about that folks!

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Oh, and as far as sounding like tw, it's just because I'm suddenly taking 8 paragraphs to make my point.

Sorry about that folks!

Apology totally unjustified. We were the enemy of world peace and got our asses handed to us because we went to war only on the one paragraph reasonings of right wing extremists. The 'Domino Theory' sound byte was total justification for VietNam. To prove how wrong VietNam was, Pentagon Papers required 15,000 pages. More words don't make it correct. But those 15,000 pages were chock full of facts - and still that was not enough to demonstrate the stupidity of the Domino Theory and Richard Nixon. Too many people refused to read beyond the one paragraph reasoning called Domino Theory. But it took 15,000 words to learn the real lessons and mistakes called Nam. Those only with simplistic reasoning are an enemy to all decent people.

Anyone finish Daniel Ellsberg's book yet? We are reliving the same history of simplistic minds vs reality. Except this time a majority percent of the world better appreciates both those lessons and what French Foreign Minister De Villipin said: War is tantamount to failure and should be used only as a last resort. A speech that resulted in a 'never before heard' rousing ovation in the Security Council and that represented a fundamental American principle.

UT has choosen to deal with concepts and facts. That demonstrated by finally providing details for his reasonings - even if it is only 8 paragraphs. A man without vast details to support his reasonings is but a fool. UT demonstrates knowledge meaning that his posts are now becoming more worth reading and may contain merit. No reason to apologize. For once UT is finally admitting real reasons for his conclusions. Its called being honest.

That is Sycamore's problem. His entire thoughts on a subject never amount to more than a few soundbytes. Having so little grasp of a subject, then he must reply with insults.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
The US would/will do it anyway with the multilateral participation of a score of other nations, including the troops and/or direct involvement of at least seven other nations, including your own as well as at least UK, Italy, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, and Israel; as well as the approving nod of about 20 others including Spain, the eastern bloc of 10, etc.

All that support (except Israel) is dependent on one fact. Attack requires a UN Resolution. Turkey's popluation was 90% against in one recent poll (without that resolution). Turkey therefore demanded the US payment (bribe) be doubled. Turkey will be paid about same as the whole cost of transport to and battle in Iraq. But then spending money without regard is a George Jr Standard Operating Procedure - which is why the National Debt must be increased from $0.47 to $5.? trillion. George Jr is also most certainly bribing many other nations including that long list in the Security Council. Without those bribes, the world is mostly against everything in George Jr's war.

Italy's government quickly hedged after public opinion against that goverment support resulted in the largest Italian demonstration ever. Even Tony Blair demands a UN Resolution - which is said to be the only reason that George Jr is trying to get UN approval.

Some Eastern Europe governments provided tacit approval of US plans. But all that support disappears without a UN resolution. In fact, the only two countries in the Security Council providing any support to US and UK are Spain and Bulgaria. Even Switzerland refused to let American planes use Swiss airspace. Due to so little support throughout most of Europe, US troops and equipment moving out of Europe had to first move to Netherlands. Public opinion throughout most of Europe is that anti-George Jr. Even in Spain, majority oppose an Iraq attack without that second UN resolution. Throughout the world, those opposition numbers range from 57% to 80+% - without a UN resolution.

But UT is correct. This American president has so little regard for rule of law, world opinion, and international diplomacy that he will attack Iraq even with no justification. Everyone believes George Jr will attack without any legal right or public support. Virtually every one of Iraq's neighbors is making preparations for war and and expects mass exodus of refugees. Arab League, in response to Prince Bandar's comments, has all but given up even upon protesting George Jr's war.

I expect war either this weekend or four weeks later - regardless of what happens in any legal body - even the US Senate.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
What the inspectors are actually supposed to do is to *confirm* Hussein's disarmnament.
It's OK, I didn't understand that either -- until Blix's first report, where he confirmed that as of that point Hussein was not disarming.

Primary job always was to confirm. But inspectors are also expected to find evidence of non-compliance. Latter is not their primary task. Blix stated (somewhere) that he was still waiting for the UN to defined the exact objectives of his inspectors. Currently they are there to confirm. They are also there to do more than confirm. But the UN (last I read) did not specifically define the entire context of their mission - in part because of US objections. Blix requested the UN finish defining his mission.

Inspectors said Iraq was cooperating overall, BUT also provided no evidence about VX and Anthrax. George Jr misrepresented Hans Blix comments into saying that Saddam was not disarming. Blix was very blunt in accusing George Jr of intentionally misrepresenting those remarks. Hans Blix did not say Saddam was not disarming. That is a George Jr misrepresentation that resulted in a rare and blunt retort from Blix.

Misrepresented also is how South Africa addressed the same disarment problem. S Africa simply poured chlorine into biological material that was dumped in the Indian Ocean - without confirmation. When asked to confirm this, S Africa had no proof. Somehow through a long convoluted process, weapons inspectors accepted S Africa's disarment claim. But questions still remain. No way to account for all the material. Some was rumored smuggled out. To this day, there still remain rumors of a biological weapons program actively in progress somewhere in SE Africa using that 'destroyed' S African biological weapons materials.

Blix also noted a S Africa delegation in Iraq to show Iraqis how to prove such material had been destroyed when real proof does not exist.

Personally, I believe some of this Iraqi material still exists. So who will be killed by it? Americans because an American president executes a vendetta? Or Iraq's myopic or complacent neighbors?

Better to have such material used on myopic Iraq's neighbors - so that they learn the meaning of being responsible for their own security. They must appreciate and have not learned the meaning of responsibility. Still the Arab world remains mostly in denial about threats to their own security and about their world responsibilities. Best thing that could happen. Saddam attacks a neighbor with VX or Anthrax. Those are Saddam's targets. That would settle everything, result in no US casulties, and not make the US a target of all Islamic extremists.

Second alternative is that weapons inspectors do find that missing material. It gets destroyed. Again no Americans die in war or due to terrorists.

Worse than Saddam is to "feed the man rather than let him learn how to fish". Great countries must earn freedom and security by suffering from their mistakes. If given same without pain, countries then make same mistakes again. Unfortunately this president wants to interfere and waste American lives because Saddam's neighbors did not take responsiblity. Saddam is their problem; not America's.

The real danger is complacency by Saddam's neighbors. George Jr only prolongs that problem in his zeal to execute a vendetta - WMD be damned. What do you call the man who hires the hit man? George Jr.


Also in dispute are some 100 missiles and 380 rocket motors. In tests without payload, everyone agrees the missile flew 200 kilometers. But Iraq maintains that without a payload, it is not a weapon. With a payload, then it is a weapon that only flys 150 km - in compliance with UN mandates. Hans Blix disagrees and ordered destruction start Saturday. UN 1441 gives inspectors the right to personally destroy those missiles. France also agrees and made same demand. Most likely, destruction of those missiles will begin as Iraq appeals its interpretation of UN Resolutions to the Security Council (assuming George Jr does not attack). Saddam would be a fool to not play for time and not destroy a few missiles.


The concept of providing an inspection team with armed soldiers was long ago considered by George Sr administration and rejected. Not because it might result in 'that ruse would end'. Too often, armed inspection teams result in violence. Violence that undermines the integrity of inspectors.

Inspectors found many WMD up to 1994. Then Iraqis got smart and learned how to destroy evidence. Inspectors were forced out only because Saddam's neighbors no longer feared Saddam. It is silly to have outside power demand of Saddam if his neighbors don't fear him. Until the Arab world fears Saddam, then US and UK only waste good men rather than let the Arab neighbors learn from their own mistakes. UN Resolution 687(?) was made redundant by an Arab world that did not take responsibility for their own security. They are the reasons for any existing WMD. If those WMD exist, then Saddam's neighbors should first suffer consequences - not Americans.

You can take a camel to water, but you can't make it drink. And if you force water into the camel, then the camel attacks you. Until Saddam's neighbors are threatened, then no one is threatened by Saddam. But Americans will suffer from terrorism if we force the camel to drive. They are and will remain (thanks to George Jr) too complacent unitl they suffer consequences. They must first take responsibility for their own security - or be victims of Saddam. Either alternative is good for the entire world. A WMD attack on an Arab nation by an Arab nation would only remove a problem bigger than Saddam - Arab complacency.

[jaguar]

Multilateral in the sense you have a bunch riding along, 10 troops each to lick America's ass. I think they manuvering behind the scenes to make sure the US has virtually unchecked control of a conquered Iraq says more than anything else, as far as the US is concerned it seems Iraq is to become a colony. Seems the US missed the colonial era and is playing catchup....

Look, i don't deny that he most likely has Chem/bio weapons and is probably working on nuclear ones. Unlike countires like Iran or North Korea. Of course North Korea can fight back, therefore that one can be solved 'diplomaticaly', people cal Saddam insane? Fuck he has NOTHING on the DPRK. You can't attack too many muslim states in a row people, that'd be a bit too obvious, plus the Iranians has bloodied the nose of the US before, better not take a risk. You've got a frigging nutter with nukes throwing his weight around, verses a tinpot dictator with a pesticides plant and battered, downsized military. Which one do you pick? The one that poses the greater threat? The one that threatens not only regional but global security? The one with a well documented history of selling missile tech? No. You go for the one that will win you votes at the next election.

This is why i call it morally bankrupt, there is not one motivation or ideal behind anything even associated with this coming war that can be considered to ahve any virtue whatsoever without being throughly tainted with hyprocracy.

Why Saddam, why now? Nothing happened, no trigger, no smoking gun, no astounding family link to Usama Bin Laden, just spin, slick PR, they've hired the best to sell their war a war for domestic consumption.

[Griff]

Originally posted by tw

Turkey therefore demanded the US payment (bribe) be doubled. Turkey will be paid about same as the whole cost of transport to and battle in Iraq. But then spending money without regard is a George Jr Standard Operating Procedure - which is why the National Debt must be increased from $0.47 to $5.? trillion.

Actually, the bribe could be far worse than even that. We may be prepared to sell out the Kurds in Northern Iraq again by allowing Turkish troops to hold the area. At present, under American air cover, they are virtually autonomous. The Turks won't want their Kurdish minority to get any ideas, so some doubt their willingness to pull out after hostilities.

[jaguar]

It's worth keeping in mind as well as posessing nuclear weaponary (confirmed) North Korea actively trades heroin, speed, forged US currancy and has a history of selling missile tech. They also have a history of trading endangered animal products such as ivory and rent out elite military personel.

Keep in mind too (of course) thier revamped nuclear program and kicking out of inspectors, by most estinate they should be able to build more bombs in the coming months, they could probably sell thsoe too. Who poses the bigger threat again?

[tw]

Originally posted by Griff
Actually, the bribe could be far worse than even that. We may be prepared to sell out the Kurds in Northern Iraq again by allowing Turkish troops to hold the area. At present, under American air cover, they are virtually autonomous. The Turks won't want their Kurdish minority to get any ideas, so some doubt their willingness to pull out after hostilities.

And you thought this was only about Saddam. It gets even more complex. In addition to the Kurds are an Islamic fundamentalist group known for extreme brutality even against other Kurds, called Ansar al-Islam. And then Shities in the south and in Basara. And Iranian assistance to anyone in country opposed to Saddam. What happens to all these as soon as they are told to be subservient to an American Military Governor? Will they all go peacefully along or does oppurtunity only mean more war - a morass that entangles Americans? Do words like Somolia or VietNam sound familiar?

Ansar al-Islam controlled territory, a Kurdish Islamic extreme fundamentalist group, is where Powell (in that UN speech) claims that Saddam was producing chemical weapons. Powell showed buildings that were actually 30 miles distant from where he said they were located. A team of western reporters visited both towns and found no evidence of chemical weapons. They did discover how hated outsiders were by fundamentalist Islamic Ansar gunman who had to be confronted by his own people to avoid bloodshed. These are the same people who will welcome American occupation for 2 to 5 years?

In the meantime, what is Iran suppose to think as soon as hundreds of thousands of heavily armed Americans are massed on both sides - their western and eastern borders? Will Iran's own allies in Iraq work peacefully under an American military governor as Iran (next country on George Jr's list of 'axis of evil') gets more nervous? Notice this will all be accomplished by a president who does not care what any other country thinks - even Iran. A president who will declare war without the approval of Congress or the UN.

Does the word instability mean anything? Even in China, they are asking who's next after Iraq?