Replies to post #153 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[jbennett53]

Incredibly excellent post Zeev! I am not in favor of an attack against Saddam but it is possible that we should. You bring up and elucidate points in a way that I am not capable of doing. The thought that I have always had is that when one takes an action very often the consequences, immediate or years later, are far worse than the problem one was trying to correct in the first place. Why is Saddam such a malevolent and angry leader? Why is Saddam in power? Why did he attack Iran? Why didn't the Iranians win the war? Why did Saddam attack Kuwait? I think the answers to my above questions can all be found with research into meddling by Britain and the US in the affairs of Iraq and Iran over the last 60 years. The answers may be open to question and not be totally black and white but the root is there that made the weed grow.

[Koikaze]

Thank you, Zeev

I admire your ability to make a succinct, rational presentation. It is already known that I agree with you, and there is nothing sychophantic about that ... I said it before I knew you thought that way.

I would like to add a circumstance that should not be overlooked: If we (the Americans) invade Iraq, Israel will almost certainly be the target of retaliatory attacks. In fact, I'd be amazed if Iraq's plans did not include the destruction of Israel as their centerpiece. Israel was attacked during the Gulf War and it would be silly to imagine that they won't a target again. If Saddam Hussein does, indeed, have nuclear capability, we would be putting Israel at an unacceptable risk.

You are not only right on moral grounds, Zeev, but on common sense grounds as well.

I fear, however, that the die is cast. My guess is that those engineering this confrontation intend to act on September 11th, amid an onslaught of patriotic propaganda. Worse, as I've asserted previously, is my fear that we are being brainwashed into supporting this action. I seriously doubt that it has anything to do with terrorism.

This is an emotion-laden topic. To avoid misunderstanding since I've chosen to comment on it, I must note that I'm not a fan of the Israeli state. I do not believe it was right for the world powers to disadvantage one group of people for the benefit of another. But, neither do I believe it is right to put the Israeli people in deadly peril ... for any reason.

Iraq aside, the terrible situation in the Middle East needs to be resolved. One possibility for reaching a resolution might be to acknowledge that the "world powers" acted improperly in 1947. What was done then can not be undone, but refusal to recognize it as an injustice precludes its resolution.

Fred

[augieboo]

Zeev,

Personally, I doubt that President Reagan's public disapproval of Isreal's attack on the Iraqi breeder reactor was anything more than public posturing for the sake of our so-called "allies" in Saudi Arabia and the other so-called "moderate" Arab states. To the extent that I am incorrect on this, then the condemnation was wrong. Israel was absolutely correct to do what it did, and even I, a self-proclaimed liberal (at the time) had the sense to recognize it.

It is true, so far as I know, that Saddam has never threatened to use nukes against the U.S. But so what? Is he stupid enough to try to take on the U.S. directly? Probably not. Is he crazy enough to share WMD technology with those who will use them against the U.S.? Probably. Is he crazy enough to use them against the U.S.' only real ally in the region, i.e., Israel? Probably.

What will our excuse be? How about:

[1] The greater good of humanity clearly required it, so we did it.

or

[2] Sometimes good people must do bad things in order to prevent bad people from doing worse things.

As to reigning in China, I think you have it exactly 180 degrees wrong. The question to ask is, if the U.S. does NOT deal harshly with a petty tyrant like Saddam, how can it be counted on to protect Taiwan, when push comes to shove?

As to the Mad-Mullahs in Iran, they will do as they please, and, as your own statement demonstrates, they will make up the excuse as they go along. The only thing preventing Iran from attacking Israel is the IDF, the Mossad, and the implied threat of U.S. retaliation.

The burden of proof you propose is impossible to meet. Thus, what you are really advocating is doing nothing until such a time as lower Manhattan disappears under a mushroom cloud.

What if Neville Chamberlain had assassinated Adolf Hitler, rather than giving him the okay to take the Sudetenland, thus bringing the world, "peace in our day" as he so in-aptly termed it upon his return to Britain? History would now record him as a strange, perhaps tragic, murderer. And tens of millions of others would have lived on in happy ignorance, never knowing they owed him their lives.

As for better solutions, assassination is the only alternative I can think of which would achieve the desired result. Unfortunately, we don't have the capability to pull it off is such a tightly controlled society.

As for containment or buying influence, neither will work. How does one contain a promoter of terrorism who is himself a head of state, unless one is willing to attack that state? And how does one buy influence with such a thug? The only influence he cares about is within the Arab world, and the way to achieve influence in the Arab world is by killing Jews and/or killing Americans.

Finally, I am, frankly, quite surprised to see you parroting the James Carville-esque line that this all being about the elections. In a word, Bull! Shrub's intention to take out Saddam has been quite clear to anyone paying attention since September of last year.

[sarai]

Zeev, An EXCELLENT analysis....Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

As petty as it sounds, I can't help but think that Bush's desire to conduct an offensive strike against Iraq is mainly about taking care of his father's unfinished business.

It is unfortunate that the current Bush has committed so much political capital to such an offensive. The Iraq offensive seems to be his top priority. Yet there is little support at home or abroad.

IMO, because Bush has committed so much political capital to an Iraq offensive, politically, he's left himself with no choice but to engage in this unpopular initiative. If Bush waffles on the planned offensive, the US will appear weak, and his leadership and presidency, weaker. It really is an unfortunate situation.

I also fear such an attack would rile the extremists to levels we have not seen or anticipated. Trying times we're living in...

Best Regards,

Sarai :)

[Frozenz]

I am not in favor of an attack on Iraq.

However there is something no one seems to be saying and it is THE ONLY justification for an invasion. When Iraq was defeated in the Gulf War they surrendered and sued for peace. The U.S. said they would stop hostilities under certain conditions such as weapons inspections, no fly zone and a few others. If Iraq decides not to honor their agreeements then the U.S. is no longer obliged by its agreement to halt hostilities.

I am very big on people honoring their agreements.