On 4/30/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 10:27 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: > 1) > >> -the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf > >> States constituted a threat to the security of the United States? > > > >After the first Gulf war there was no threat to Saudi Arabia or anyone > >else for that matter > > So, do you believe that the US should have withdrawn its forces from Saudi > Arabia, Kuwait, and the rest of the Persian Gulf following Gulf War I, as > US troops were no longer necessary to defend these countries from Saddam > Hussein?
Gary, giving my own answers again. Yes If so, why do you believe that during the eight years of his Presidency, > during which he was substantially downsizing the US military, Bill Clinton > did not do so? Additionally, why do you think that Bill Clinton launched > operation "Desert Fox", among other military activities in Iraq, during > his > Presidency? Do you think that Bill Clinton would have answered "yes" to > question #1 above? And if so, do you disagree with Bill Clinton on this > point? Geopolitics. Well the massive GOP media blitz on Clinton for trying to get tough on terrorists showed us who hates America. Clinton was the most Republican Dem president the GOP will ever get - which is why they hated him so much. Of course, I disagree with Clinton on sanctions and some actions. He was almost as amoral political as the GOP and was severely circumscribed on actions he could take. Giving in to the GOP spin that Saddam tried to assassinate Bush 41 was a mistake for example. Most analysts find this implausible and a later Kuwaiti invention. 2) > >> -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi > >> Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein inflaming ordinary > >> Arabs constituted a threat to the security of the United States? > > > >Much less inflamitory than invading and occupying a sovern Arab nation. > > That's legitimate, although the inspiration US troops in Iraq provided to > pro-independence demonstrators in Lebanon seems like an important > counterpoint to your view. There was selected media coverage of the demonstrations in the US . Some of the larger ones were quite interesting. 3) > >> -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi > >> Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein undermining the > >> ability of the US government to press for reform in Saudi Arabia > >> constituted a threat to the security of the United States? > > > >see above > > So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the benefits to the US > of being able to apply increased pressure for reform in Saudi Arabia were > outweighed by the increased resentment against the US for deposing Saddam > Hussein and occupying Iraq? I believe there is no increased pressure for reform on Saudi Arabia. 4) > >> -the continued presence of UN sanctions on Iraq, designed to prevent > >> Saddam Hussein's further development of WMD's , simultaneously > >> impoverishing > >> millions of Iraqis, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against us, > constituted > >> a threat to the security of the United States? > > > >see above > > This is interesting. If I understand you correctly, you believe that the > resentment against the US in the Arab World for deposing Saddam Hussein, > occupying Iraq, and setting up an independent government there outweighs > the sum of resentment for US troops being stationed in the Muslim Holy > Land, plus the resentment felt against the US for the plight of the Iraqi > people under Saddam Husssein and Oli-for-Food, *and* the resentment felt > against the US support for its tacit support for the totalitarian Saudi > regime. Is that right? Since my answers were the same as Doug's I see you do not understand the answers. Yes, the Arab world hates us much more now. It is pretty easy to see that in surveys. Previous US actions could be argued about but this was such an outlaw act that reinforces all the European colonialist past pretty much no one in the Arab world supports it. 5) > >> -the funding of Palestinian terrorists, prolonging the Palestinian-Arab > >> conflict, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against the US constituted a > >> threat to the security of the United States? > >> > >> -the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in > a > >> terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United > >> States? > > > >If the funding of terrorists constitutes justification for invasion then > >we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, the nation that funded the 9/11 > >attacks. > > Doug, that's not an answer, it is another question. > > I have discussed in other threads the requirements for justification for > war: > 1) There must be a threat > 2) Other options must reasonably have been exhausted > 3) The war must be likely to do more good than harm > 4) There must be a reasonable chance of success > > Dave Land has argued that Gulf War II did not meat the first critera - > that > Iraq posted a threat. You don't seem to have answered whether this > particular example of Iraq's actions constituted a threat. In any case, > while Saudi funding of terrorists is also a threat to the US, the proposal > for an invasion of Saudi Arabia does not, in my mind, meet the other > criteria for justifying a war. Iraq was not a threat. Options were not exhausted. War is doing more harm than good. I can't even imagine what you would think success is now. You getting a business contract? 6) > >> -the distinct possibility that France, China, and Russia would succeed > in > >> the lifting of UN sanctions and the ending of UN WMD inspections in > Iraq, > >> allowing Saddam Hussein - who had very nearly succeed twice before in > >> assembling nuclear weapons (Osirisk and just before Gulf War I) - to > >> resume his nuclear weapons program, constituted a threat to the > security > >> of the > >> United States, even after US intelligence services had utterly missed > the > >> development of nuclear programs in Iraq (twice), India, Pakistan, Iran, > >> and the DPRK? > > > >The lifting of sanctions may have been a possibility before 9/11. Not > >after. > > I'm curious as to why you believe that. Do you think that those elements > in the world that were pushing for a lifting of sanctions on Iraq so a > connection between 9/11 and Iraq? If so, what was that connection? I agree with Doug again. While there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 with America's attention and vital interests at play in the Middle East the world would not go against American interests in a relatively minor matter. Remember the French headline "We are all Americans" on 9/12 ? Bush squandered massive goodwill and twisted it against us with stupid and illegal neo-colonial actions.. 7) > >> -the stockpiling of large quantities of anthrax, for which Saddam > Hussein > >> could provide no account, constituted a threat to the security of the > >> United States, even after an untraced anthrax terrorist attack on the > >> United States had already killed 5 innocent Americans and debilitated > >> several others? > > > >Which, after two years of occupation we can provide absolutely no account > >either. No evidence whatsoever. > > This is ex post facto reasoning. The question, however, is knowing > affirmatively that Iraq at one time had large stockpiles of anthrax, and > knowing that at that point in time that Iraq was not providing an > affirmative account of those stockpiles, did this consitute a threat? No. Ahh, as I argued in my blog for months before the war, we did know that Iraq didn't have those stockpiles. Unless you were wrapped up in the circle of warhawks feeding each other paranoid misinformation. 8) > >> -the stockpiling of other biological agents constituted a threat to the > >> security of the United States? > > > >Exhaustive searches and a billion dollars and not a trace of WMDs. > > This is again ex post facto. We know affiirmatlvely that Iraq had other > biological agents, and at the time of the decision to go to war, Iraq had > provided no affirmative accouting of their disposal. Did this constitute a threat to the security of the United States? No, there could be no accounting for stuff that did not exist except in some hypothetical constructs. "You had a factory that if you ran 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, everyday since we believe it was possible you have this much. Give us the receipts for destroying it." > > 9) > >> -the stockpiling of chemical weapons, for which Saddam Hussein could > >> provide no account, and which Saddam Hussein could probably sell > >> undetected on the international black market, constituted a threat to > >> the security of the United States? > > > >Pre-war inspections and two years of occupation and no evidence of WMDs > >except some shells Sadam probably lost in the '80s. > > This is again ex post facto. We know affiirmatlvely that Iraq had other > biological agents, and at the time of the decision to go to war, Iraq had > provided no affirmative accouting of their disposal. Did this constitute > a threat to the security of the United States? No, this was imaginary. In Britain days after the Powell presentation there were arguments that there was nothing in it. The UN weapons inspectors were asking themselves what the Hell was that about? Every point in his presentation had explanations permitted under the Iraq sanctions or were imaginations and not evidence. 10) > >> -the distinct possibility that Saddam Hussein, possessor of some of the > >> world's largest oil revenues, and who had twice before attempted to > >> acquire nuclear weapons, could purchase a fully-assembled nuclear > weapon > >> from the > >> utterly impoverished regime of the DPRK, beginning approximately in > 2001, > >> constituted a threat to the security of the United States? > > > >The even more distinct possibility that the people that funded 9/11 - > >elements of the Saudi government could do the same. > > Again, this ducks the question as to whether or not Iraq constituted a > threat. Have you answered the question about my neighbors down the street and if you feel I was justified in bombing their house and taking over his Kwicky-Mart? So, to summarize, Dave Land argued that Iraq was not a threat to the United > States. I asked 11 questions regarding whether Iraq did indeed actually > pose a threat. > > Your answers, so far appear to be: > > 1) No - Iraq was not going to attack its neighbors > 2) Yes - Iraq was a threat to the image of America among Arabs, but going > to war would exacerbate this threat > 3) Yes - Iraq was a threat to the image of America among Arabs, but going > to war would exacerbate this threat > 4) Yes - Iraq was a threat to the image of America among Arabs, but going > to war would exacerbate this threat > 5a) Presumablky Yes - Iraq was a threat to the image of America among > Arabs, but going to war would exacerbate this threat > 5b) <No Answer> - on whether funding terrorists constitutes a threat > 6) No - there was no chance of sanctions being lifted > 7) <No Answer> - based on information available at the time > 8) <No Answer> - based on information available at the time > 9) <No Answer> - based on information available at the time > 10) <No Answer> - on whether the ability to purchase a nuclear weapon from > the DPRK constitute a threat > > Thanks again. > > JDG What interesting questions and what an interesting slant. Are you angling for a job in some GOP administration? -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
