Replies to post #164 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[Rick Faurot]

Zeev

There's one thing I don't agree with in your "precedents" argument. No one else in the world is in the same position as the US to put on a unilateral attack. The political arguments that might be held in the UN have little to do with what happens out there "on the ground," as the generals and military pundits like to say. Our attack on Afghanistan was essentially unilateral, yet I don't see other countries mounting major offensives based on our rationale, for one very simple reason: they don't have the resources to do it and then handle the repercussions. If they did, surely some Arab group would have by now attacked Israel with a major military strike on the very theory you are expounding, namely that Israel are terrorists who endanger Arabs and Arab interests.

This is not to say I agree with attacking Iraq. Unfortunately the very idea that we might do that has aroused almost universal condemnation of the US, so we are put in a worse spot than if we had just hacked away at Iraq as we have been doing.

The failure to close out Saddam has haunted Bush Sr and I am wondering of the younger Bush hasn't made this attack an issue simply because of that. Ironically ceasing the attack without taking Bagdad was in my opinion a strategically smart move. By leaving Saddam in place we kept a balance of power in the region that we understood. If we succeed in wiping out Saddam and his regime with a new attack, the political consequences for us may well be grave and the outcome in the region probably cannot be foreseen at all. Not a smart gamble in my opinion. The US financial markets are absolutely dreading this attack as well, in my opinion. It won't be a quick attack like the last war, expert analysis has said we'd have to have 250,000 men on the ground there for at least six months.

So I agree with your view on the wisdom of this attack but not with your rationale.

Rick

[augieboo]

will that possession or alleged possession justify, let say, Syria to carry on a preemptive strike against Israel?

No.

And, since Syria is still at war with Israel, (I believe), and still dedicated to the destruction of Israel, there are only two things preventing Syria from launching just such an attack:

[1] Lack of capability.

[2] Fear of consequences.

By taking down Saddam, we increase the time period for number 1, and add to number 2.

IF Saddam were boxed, I would agree with you. But he isn't. He, and many other lunatics/despots in the Arab world have simply learned the fine are of public relations.

Examples:

1. As you cited, Saddam no longer publicly threatens to destroy Israel. Has he changed his mind? I don't think so. He has merely learned to keep his mouth shut until he gains the MEANS to destroy Israel. Then we will hear from him, but it will be too late to do anything about it.

2. Arafat regularly denounces homicide bombings -- in English -- then praises them and promises the destruction of Israel -- in Arabic. Which head of the serpent do you believe?

3. Saudi Arabia pretends to be our ally, yet {a} its schools teach virulent anti-US, anti-jew, anti-western, and anti-Israeli propaganda to all of its children at every age, {b} it exports its sick, bizarre, and, most important, imperialistic, Wahabbist-Islam all over the world, all the while spending unknown millions of dollars per year on lobbyists and PR firms here in the US to prevent people from knowing what they are really all about.

You are absolutely right about one thing. Bush Senior should have killed Saddam the first time around. But he didn't, and now Shrub has the opportunity to make up for his father's mistake.

[sarai]

Agreed. Too bad this Administration does not share your logic and insight.