The Tape

[elSicomoro]

What would it take to make the US cease its war talk?

Seriously...I keep hearing "Saddam must disarm!" over and over again. But that's all I really hear...what does the Bush administration need to hear or know from Saddam that would stop it from sending our troops in?

[Undertoad]

Oh one last thing.

Mugabe is France's "responsibility". The French like Mr. Mugabe. Why is that, exactly?

It was revealed yesterday that a French aviation company is poised to help rescue Zimbabwe's beleaguered national airline. ATR is in talks to lease three or more aircraft to Air Zimbabwe.


(They're so principled! Such pacifists! So anti-war!)


Y'know, I was not really that interested in foreign relations pre-9/11. Now, I feel like understanding foreign relations is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle where you don't know what it will look like until it's done. And by definition, you only have access to half of the pieces, and it's a 3000-piece puzzle.

Each fact, each point of information is another piece of the puzzle. Oh but it's worse than that - some of the pieces are misdirections, or fake pieces, or printed on both sides to annoy and confuse you.

A lot of people get, say, 100 pieces that they like, and maybe they even find some connecting pieces. They look at the pieces they've collected, and they say "Aha! This is a picture of a tiger!"

But 100 pieces is not enough, and one's understanding of the whole big picture is not really helped by picking up, say, just the yellow pieces, or just the pieces that fit into one's little corner.

[Undertoad]

On what the US requires: the administration has been clear that its policy has been regime change, but when they announced that they were going to the UN, the policy wavered. At one point Bush said that if Saddam were to give up his WMD, it would be an indicator of regime change -- meaning, a full and obvious change in how Iraq acts and what it's capable of doing.

This has happened before: when Colonel Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi, or Khaddafy or Quadafai or however you want to spell it, took a missile in his backside and decided to play nicely from there on out.

They say it's been a boon to Libya and that Libya has even played nicely in the War on Terror. The Colonel understood: play nice with the US, and the world, and you pretty much win; you can BE a nutty "evil dictator" type and rule for life. You can fuck with your own people as much as you like, but you can't fuck with anyone else.

Don't think that Hussein hasn't been offered some sort of deal. He could live in Mr. Khaddafi's country, in first class luxury for the rest of his life, if he wanted.

[slang]

Originally posted by sycamore
..what does the Bush administration need to hear or know from Saddam that would stop it from sending our troops in?

That he has disarmed. There are still tons of unaccounted for chemical agents *somewhere*. Have they been destroyed? Why would someone destroy them without having some documentation and proof that they were. As far as I know, Saddam hasn't even tried to prove they were destroyed. He just says they're gone. I believe the same goes for bio agents.

Even if you arent in favor of the war, given the track record of Saddam, arent you the least bit curious where these items are? Why would he destroy them without sufficient proof for the UN inspectors to verify his word? Did he think we would believe him alone in this current trend of terrorism?

There are of course, two camps in the political battle over this war. The one that believes Saddam can't or wont hand off WOMD to Al-Qeada and the other believes that he *couldn't pass up* the opportunity and certainly will. There are are significant numbers on both sides. I appreciate your opinion and the non confrontational/accusitory way you present it. I think Saddam will use the WOMD that he *doesnt have* (wink,wink) to assist in attacks we have never seen here in the US. Al-Qeada doesn't need WOMD to attack us, but if they had them they could easily kill us. What other country would supply them to AQ? N Korea? China? France? It seems obvious to me that Iraq is the most logical target at this time.

I truly believe that we are not getting the whole story. It may be years from now, only after Chris Ruddy writes a series of conspiracy books, that we know the truth.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Undertoad

Richard Perle, a former US Assistant Defence Secretary, said the French anti-war stance was driven by economic interests. French oil giant TotalFinaElf has exclusive exploration contracts worth €60bn - €75bn to develop the massive Majnoon and Bin Umar oilfields in southern Iraq, he said.

Why can't TotalFinaElf and Exxon just hire some mercenaries, have their own private war, and winner gets Iraq. I'm still not happy that the General Accounting Office failed in its suit to find out anything about the President's task force.

A federal judge yesterday rejected efforts by the General Accounting Office to force Vice President Richard B. Cheney to reveal the names of those who served on a presidential task force that helped shape the Bush administration's energy policy.

And why do you think the administation fought tooth and nail to keep elements of that meeting secret?

So we have administrations on both sides of the Atlantic being influenced by oil companies into foreign policy decisions - big surprise.

[tw]

Last time Blix and associates reported, they said more time is required for inspections. Therefore George Jr and company misrepresented what Blix said. This time Blix was blunt. First he demonstrated why there is no reason for war and provided good reasons for more inspectors. Then he said time required is unknown since all that inspections must accomplish still has not been defined. Furthermore he took apart Colin Powell's 'reasons to justify war' speech where Blix had specific facts. Powell misrepresented as a WMD coverup what was probably normal maintenance on a facility that Iraq had even included in its declaration. That decontamination truck was just as likely a maintenance truck. How convenient of Powell to forget to mention that Iraq had already listed that site for inspection.

From CNN: The day belonged to French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, whose impassioned speech seeking more time for inspections elicited rare and loud applause from diplomats in the chamber. By contrast, ambassadors and dignitaries greeted Powell's remarks with silence.

That's right. Something that never happens in the Security Council. The French Foreign Minister's speech was followed by loud, supportive applause! Even ABC News summarized what happened today:

Considering the strong anti-war response in the council, it appeared highly unlikely that the United States could muster the nine votes needed to authorize war now.

Only Spain and UK gave support to a militant US position. But UK's Jack Straw even hedged his support with a consideration for peace.

Peace will not happen with George Jr. as president. WMD are irrelevant. George Jr long ago decided he wanted to attack Iraq and is only seeking reasons to justify that inevitable attack. In international circles, George Jr's latest feeble attempt to link Al Qaeda with Iraq has apparently backfired. He can only outrightly lie so many times. It was a stupid lie that only insulted world intelligence. That silly attempt to link Iraq and Al Qaeda has, instead, further undermined George Jr's international credibility.

At least one senior adminstration official said an Al Qaeda attack would occur definitely this week as the end of the Haj. The Haj ended. The attack - and all those duct tape sales - only demonstrated how this administration would promote hype, fear, and hate to promote the George Jr need for war. It is now being leaked that evidence of an attack was probably as reliable as "6 Arabs sneaking into NY from Canada" or an attempt to blow up the Golden Gate brdige

BTW, who was so foolish as to buy duct tape - as if taping the front door was going to protect from a biochemical attack. What nonsense! Only a mental midget president would believe that recommenadtion. But then a duct tape recommendation was probably to promote fear and therefore more support for war.

Even Colin Powell recognized the futility of his George Jr assigned task:

From CNN: A visibly exasperated Secretary of State Colin Powell, setting aside his prepared remarks, warned that the world should not be taken in by "tricks that are being played on us." But only Spain and Britain spoke up for the U.S. position in the 15-member council, and even Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw held out hope for a peaceful solution if Iraq dramatically accelerates its cooperation.

To justify war, Undertoad must provide a smoking gun. He cannot. At best he can only provide fear and speculation. Only a country that is an 'axis of evil' would use fear and speculation to justify war. But then the last time a president spit in the public's face and went to war on fears - the Domino Theory - "We have met the enemy and he is us". What Undertoad posts today would make Gen Curtis LeMay ("We are already at war and the public does not know it yet") proud. Undertoad provides no smoking gun - only speculation.

Even those aluminum tubes (remember those tubes that prove we must attack?) still remain something to look into and were probably only for reverse engineering of a rocket. Take away the hype, hate, and fear from George Jr, and those aluminum tubes are but a detail to be examined - no rush - as Dr ElBaradei's report states.

[tw]

There are plenty of reasons to attack Iraq. The only problem is they are all in North Korea.

[Uryoces]

Question:

Its not alright if people are being routinely raped and tortured. But where is all this raping and torturing? Who is doing it?

Answer [same post, one paragraph distant]:

If murder, rape, and torture is so unacceptable, then why is George Jr not declaring war on Zimbabwae and Mugabe? ... What goes on, publically documented, under Mugabe's order is more appauling that what Saddam is accused of...

If George Jr was thinking logically, then American troops would be massing in Africa.

Zimbabwae is a problem for SE Africian nations.

It sure would be nice if the UN were assisting, but they're not. France would raise an objection to it due to their ties to Mugabe.

Far more dangerous than those aluminum tubes are nuclear bombs in Pakistan, Israel, and India

Why tw, they're just racheting things up for negotiations!

They've both tested atomic weapons. Neither country has expressed a great interest in us. There are nuts in every country, e.g. Timothy McVey and Tim Eyman. Islamic nations by default do not like "the West". At best things are going to be cordial, regardless of our policies. Israel will not use them unless they are used first. India and Pakistan aren't going to do a damn thing. This has the look and feel of a Maori greeting ceremony.

Those silly aluminum tubes, magnets ...

They have very specific uses. I have never seen a chef use a bowie knife ... not for food prep anyway. He's not going to run milk through them to remove magnetic impurities.

originally posted by Sycamore:

what does the Bush administration need to hear or know from Saddam that would stop it from sending our troops in?

That's a damn fine question. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Sadam broke off the exclusive deal with France...

originally posted by richlevy:

Why can't TotalFinaElf and Exxon just hire some mercenaries, have their own private war, and winner gets Iraq. I'm still not happy that the General Accounting Office failed in its suit to find out anything about the President's task force...
So we have administrations on both sides of the Atlantic being influenced by oil companies into foreign policy decisions - big surprise.

I almost spit-taked my OJ! That sounds like a better idea the more I think about it. Depressing thought that this is all about oil [mostly/partly]...

I will never dispute with that wars are started for oil, and that I don't think much of Bush's desire to invade Iraq. Everyone has their fingers in world politics, but this should not be construed as an excuse.

Everyone is guilty, but When a reader uses that club on US policies, instead of the scalpel of directly addressing issues, he/she comes across as hypocritical.

[Uryoces]

There are plenty of reasons to attack Iraq. The only problem is they are all in North Korea.

That's funny, tw! One problem at a time...

[Griff]

Originally posted by richlevy


Why can't TotalFinaElf and Exxon just hire some mercenaries, have their own private war, and winner gets Iraq.

It would appear they already have.

[elSicomoro]

How exactly are France and Russia doing business with Iraq? I didn't think anyone legally could, unless this is under the guise of "humanitarianism." (Not that I'm surprised, but still.)

Originally posted by Undertoad
This has happened before: when Colonel Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi, or Khaddafy or Quadafai or however you want to spell it, took a missile in his backside and decided to play nicely from there on out.

Not completely. He hemmed and hawwed over the Pan Am trials. And other than a few missiles here and there, we haven't given Saddam a similar treatment (minus the Gulf War).

[opinion]

(I can't believe I'm doing this...God, forgive me) I agree with tw, in that I don't think Saddam is as big of a threat as he is being made out to be. What can he be inextricably linked to terror-wise since the end of the Gulf War? The ties to al-Qaeda appear weak at best. And Saddam seems to be a pure secularist; therefore, that would make an Osama-Saddam marriage unlikely. (Oh sure, they could unify for a common goal--the downfall of the US--much like the Communists and Nationalists did in China during WW2 against Japan. But Saddam is so drunk on absolute power, I don't think he'd be willing to even give an inch to someone like Osama.)

From my viewpoint, our president (who wasn't strong on foreign policy pre-9/11 to begin with) and his sidekick (who basically helmed the first Gulf War) are picking on a convenient target. Americans have short attention spans...and when it became apparent that we weren't going to find Osama, we turned our attention to the "runt."

The minute Saddam threw out inspectors 4 years ago, there should have been a massive invasion of Allied forces, with lots of bombing and killing of innocent civilians. Admittedly, Clinton was weak on the military end (and probably gunshy after Somalia).

But, we stalled. The UK stalled. France claimed "think of the children!" (Not really, but you get the idea.) Basically, the world dropped the ball. And so, we let Saddam carry on, acting like the jackass that he is.

But what we've also seen is that he's really not a threat to anyone...other than his own people. We're not about to step into the Kurd situation (b/c then the Kurds in Turkey would uprise, and Turkey is firm on keeping them in their place). And in recent times, the Kurds have pretty much been running their own show in the north. I definitely agree that Saddam is a tyrant, but no worse than a Qaddafi.

Slang, I am curious about what happened to these chem/bio agents. But here's the problem with that...

Realistically, we don't really know what he had to begin with. He could have 2 vials or 2 million vials of VX for all we know. Maybe he used all of it up during the Iran-Iraq War or on his attacks on the Kurds. He's talked a bunch of shit in his day...whose to say he had a lot of these agents in the first place?

I think the inspectors need more time. They've only been back there 2 months, and have been gone for over 4 years. Bring in more of 'em...make sure they're well-qualified. And if you can't find anything, well, then you can't find anything. *shrugs* How can you really argue with that? All we can really do is keep them under suspicion as we do North Korea, and get as much intelligence as we can on them.

I just don't see the Bush administration ever being satisfied here. Even if Hans and Mohamed and the gang over in the sand report ridiculously good cooperation from Iraq and find nothing, it's just not going to satisfy this administration.

So, we go to war. A strong wave of Arab nationalism rises up, the US and UK become more frequent victims of terrorist attacks, etc. etc. This is worst-case scenario mind you, but a very real possibility.

Meanwhile, nothing domestically has really been done since that cute tax cut almost 2 years ago (minus the post-9/11 security issues). The economy is improving, yet still sucking a serious fart. We're spinning our wheels here.

I'm sick of it. Let the inspectors do their thing. Leave Saddam to his delusions. Find Osama and his crew. And let's work on repairing our world reputation and getting our domestic house in order.

[/opinion]

[tw]

Originally posted by sycamore
How exactly are France and Russia doing business with Iraq? I didn't think anyone legally could, unless this is under the guise of "humanitarianism." (Not that I'm surprised, but still.)

Virtually every neighbor of Saddam is doing business. In a book by a CIA agent active in Lebanon and N Iraq, even the Kurds do a lucritive business with Saddam and also attack him. Even worse, Kurds will go to war with each other rather than with Saddam over control of that Saddam trade. Much oil goes to the American ally Turkey from Iraq, but mostly through middle men - Kurds - Saddam's sworn enemy.

Jordan is a major trading port for Iraqi goods. Jordan is also a US ally. That long road from Iraq to Jordan is heavily traveled.

So how much trade is Iraq doing? They export enough oil that damage for years to Iraqi oil wells is expected to cause $40 per barrel oil - a 30 or 40% increase in world oil prices.

[tw]

Originally posted by Uryoces
> Far more dangerous than those aluminum tubes are
> nuclear bombs in Pakistan, Israel, and India

They've both tested atomic weapons. Neither country has expressed a great interest in us. There are nuts in every country, e.g. Timothy McVey and Tim Eyman. Islamic nations by default do not like "the West".

Pakistan, Israel, and India have expressed as much interest in attacking the US as Saddam. Once George Jr rhetoric is eliminated, then Saddam has no interest in attacking America. What would he gain? Where is the profit? Saddam's entire history is to avoid all conflict with America. He was shocked and confused when America came to the rescue of Kuwait. After all, we all but told him that he could take Kuwait - according to what he heard. You can imagine his shock when America went to war - a Saddam worse case nightmare.

That is Saddam's history. Avoid all conflict with big powers such as the US. Those WMD were for unification (liberation from Saddam's viewpoint) of the Gulf region. WMD were a threat to regional nations - not to America. Until those neighbors feel threatened, then America has no direct interest in Saddam.

Geopolitical conditions will change with invasion. The only target of George Jr is Saddam. Therefore Saddam will use any WMD he might still have on attacking US troops. If the US did as in Bosnia and Serbia, then something more powerful than direct military force would bring down Saddam. Many forget what more powerful weapon was used to take down Milosevik and associates. Richard Holbrooke. Same weapon could be used to make Saddam redundant without exposing US troops to WMD and exposing every American citizen to intelligent terrorists. But first Saddam must do something worthy of such a response.

Saddam is not and has no intent on being a threat to the US - just like Pakistan, India, and Israel. Get rid of George Jr rhetoric and that has always been the bottom line.

BTW, it is totally naive to think America is not a preferred friend of many Islamic nations. Get rid of the "all Arabs are evil" mentalities and mindsets, and some of America's stronger allies are Islamic. Need we start with Turkey and Egypt. The many small Gulf nations. Oman. Jordan. Those who promote hate also claim that all Islam nations dislike America. What Islamics people do dislike is George Jr. But then that is understandable. Virtually every other nation less likes George Jr.

[Undertoad]

<i>What can he be inextricably linked to terror-wise since the end of the Gulf War?</i>

There's too much we can't see. The only thing we know for certain is the $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. But for example, Abu Nidal "committed suicide" in Baghdad last year. Very worst known terrorist living, considered responsible for 900 deaths. Interesting puzzle piece?

[wolf]

tw wrote:
What Islamics people do dislike is George Jr. But then that is understandable. Virtually every other nation less likes George Jr.

It is very naive to state that the problem the rest of the world is having is with George W. Bush ... it's with the US as a nation, regardless of who is at the helm.

That's kind of like saying that the Eagles' only problem was Andy Reid.