US on power trip

Originally posted by ak:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=68 &ncid=68&e=2&u=/nyt/20021011/ts_nyt/u_s__has_a_plan_to_occupy_iraq__officials_report

What the heck is going on??? They can't seriously think doing this is a good idea in MiddleEast. Isn't US presence in Middle East one of the main reasons for all this terrorist attacks in the first place?
Click to expand...

Can you come up with a better option? Do you think that we should leave him alone and pull out of the Middle East entirely? I would like to hear what you think we should do and how we can implement the plan.
 
You are criticising this potential move because you fear terrorism will increase?

You think that Saddam is holding back right now for some other reason than the fact he lacks the capability of detonating nuclear bombs in every major city in the U.S?

You don't think we should aid Israel?

Do you want to pay $4.00 a gallon for gasoline?

Would you be asking this question if one of your family members was a victim of a chemical/biological weapons strike compliments of a terrorist funded my Saddam?

I am merely asking some questions here.
 
Originally posted by Edwardo:
You are criticising this potential move because you fear terrorism will increase?
 Good chance


You think that Saddam is holding back right now for some other reason than the fact he lacks the capability of detonating nuclear bombs in every major city in the U.S?
[/b} No he doesnt need to, why would it help him any to blow up a US city? It would give the US a better reason to kick his... out of power. He wants to rule his little "kingdom" unitl his dying days

You don't think we should aid Israel?

Why exactly? we already give them too much $$$ and get heat everywhere for it...hell even some European press says we are Isreal's B-....I dont like being anyone's B- thank you.

Do you want to pay $4.00 a gallon for gasoline?

Iraq doesnt contribute that muc to the oil intake of the US...if there is a public uprising across the mideast and another oil embargo...then cars will suck again like the late 70s and tbe 90s will be seen another 60s.


Would you be asking this question if one of your family members was a victim of a chemical/biological weapons strike compliments of a terrorist funded my Saddam?


again to my above on saddam and his little "kingdom"


I am merely asking some questions here.

I am merely giving my opinion, no flaming please
smile.gif
 
all the above said, I wouldnt care half as much on the atttack if Bush had gotten the economy straight.

IMHO, first help ourselves...then lets worry about Iraq.

__________

Sad thing in this is, I am a conservative
tongue.gif
 
For the record, I do not condone the existence of Saddam.

Having said that, has anyone considered the ramifications of what will happen when we do occupy Iraq?

Does anyone in their sane mind think that the most hated nation in the world be exonerated from that status?

Which is more likely, widespread muslim embracement of US occupation in Iraq? Or uproar, increased anti-US sentiment, leading towards even more terrorist activity.

I don't think affordable gasoline is worth the price of me living in fear. If we do occupy Iraq, we will not have the leader of a crippled nation to be afraid of, but rather every extremist organization on the planet targeting US.

To date, Iraq is far away from having any sort of nuclear or biological capability capable of harming US citizens on our OWN soil. How many countries have ever managed to develop on ICBM? Let's get real here. I'm more worried about our domestic wackos who carry sniper rifles popping our fellow citizens at gas stations than Saddam Hussein's purported arsenal of biological weapons.

Let's find out what Saddam actually has first, before we go at it alone. We'll be no better than the most of evil despots the world has ever known if we invade a sovereign nation unprovoked and occupy them. Let us seek the proof first so that we may justify our actions.
 
I live in the backyard of this sniper character and have been to some of these gas stations in the past. That said, I am far more concerned about Iraq than the sniper.

ICBM's are not the issue. What is the issue, is Sadaam's desire to become the arms supplier to all of the anti-christian/jewish/American/"infidel" terrorist groups across the globe.

Ironically, America does consume large amounts of Iraqi oil. I believe we are the second largest consumer of their crude. ALthough, the monies from such sales are under the oil for food program that is intended to give funding for food programs to feed the Iraqi people. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this money has been used for many other things. Hungry people = Angry People. Keeping your people angry at a scapegoat is a good policy for a tyrant dictator.

If you think this is truly "unilateral", you are fooling yourself. If you could only be a fly on the wall during the non-public discussions with world leaders on this subject. One thing to ponder is America's history of acting internationally for economic gain. This is true, but many other nations are far worse. Russia and France have been less than mum on the negative side due to the massive debt and trading status they have with Iraq. If they are assured that they will be taken care of economically, they will be on board as well. International press is only a tool for public posturing! Reality is far different than what we hear/read.

My sincere hope is that this will come to a head and the threat of an overwhelming attack will begin to cast a shadow on Sadaam. Before an attack, people in his inner-circle will turn on him and take care of the problem without the need for one foreign bullet. In reality, very few Iraqi's are truly willing to die for Sadaam. Hence, the gulf war of 91, soldiers were surrendering themselves to field reporters of foreign press. Not sure if this will happen, but it is my current best case scenario. A bloodless regime change, wouldn't that be nice.

As for occupation, ooooh, what a touchy issue. I agree that a US occupation will only hurt our image in the Middle East even though it is probably the only good way to ensure security in the power vacuum that would develop in the abscence of Sadaam. Very expensive too. Perhaps the UN could step up to the plate and insert a stabilizing body to manage the country until a legitmate Iraqi govt can be instituted. That would actually be a legitmate opportunity for the UN to do something right for a change. Whatever stablizing force manages Iraq, perhaps there will be a way to use funds from Iraqi oil to offset the obscene cost that will be incurred.

I still can't believe any Muslim anywhere in the world that is half-way informed, would waste the breath to stick up for this guy. That being said, his money to Palenstinian families has served him well in that regard. For Sadaam to even call himself a Muslim is a farse. Aside from the defector intel and other accounts of allies about Iraq in the press, the most damning information I have heard has come directly from Iraqis that have lived under his rule. Friends of mine have said that what we see in the press is watered down from reality. If what we hear is in fact watered down, I can't imagine what is the true reality.
 
Auroraptor,

You pretty much misinterpreted every one of my questions. I was not clear in them really.

You said terrorism will increase yes? What do you call THREE PLANES CRASHING IN TO OUR BUILDINGS? They also caught a guy who had a bomb in his shoe on a planne. They have also caught another cell a couple of weeks ago. The ONLY thing left for them to do is use a weapon of mass destruction. Saddam is WORKING on that right now! The CIA and British Intelligence said that he is a few years away from having the capability of making a bomb. I guess we should just "worry about ourselves" first? Then take care of that issue?

One of the reasons our gas prices are low is BECAUSE we have a presence in the middle east. We are also hated because of that but you have to make choices. We Americans have a way of life that is not cheap. In fact, we consume more than any other country. We even have citizens who have multiple cars(CONSUMERS) and cannot vote(we get to vote) yet. We have those luxories and they are not cheap. Sometimes our military has to provide stability to the middle east so that we can retain our energy supply chains.

I am not sure who said something about an ICBM...but I have this to say. Why would a terrorist need an ICBM to deliver a nuclear bomb? There are so many ways one could bring a nuclear bomb in here I am quite sure I would not even want to know.

You know there was a time when America would not have been messed with like this. I fear that time is over. We have become very soft. I have read about what America did to the last entity that attacked our country on our soil. That country paid a very heavy price for its attack.


[This message has been edited by Edwardo (edited 14 October 2002).]
 
I was the one who mentioned the ICBM. So let's talk about nuclear delivery.

If you were to detonate a nuclear bomb on us, the following are possible delivery methods:

1) Launch it from the coast with a nuclear sub

2) Sneak the bomb across the border through Mexico or Canada

3) Send an airplane over and drop it

4) Launch an ICBM

From a tactical standpoint, it simply is just not that easy to launch a nuclear attack on the United States. Do you think Saddam can pull any of this off anytime soon?

The graver concern is what Saddam will do after he has acquired nuclear or biological weapon capability. If he points it at one of his neighbors, say Israel or Saudi Arabia, now that's where you start having problems from a world stability perspective.

At the end of the day, my contention is that Saddam does not represent a real threat to national security right now. True, he COULD sell his weapons to terrorist organizations. However, the former Soviet Union has been THE premier weapons-of-mass-destruction supplier to the world for over a decade now. Are we about to oust Putin anytime soon?

I'm not defending Saddam. However, my belief is that Saddam is not a threat to my personal safety today. We may have other reasons to pop Saddam, but the "official" reason doesn't hold water in my opinion.
 
The comparison with Putin is quite a stretch. There is a huge difference between active pursuit vs. the inability to wield control over foreign states.

Point of reference the Soviet Union as mentioned, no longer exists... nor has it for over 10 years. Putin is the leader of Russia, which does not include control of the many states once a part of the Soviet Union. This is one of the reasons there are issues today with ex-Soviet states that have residual nuclear assets, both fissile material and delivery technology. This is not to say that there have not been isolated incidents with rogue Russian scientists, but the bulk of this black trade is occurring in the ex-Soviet states.

While Putin is trying to stop such activities, even outside of Russia proper borders, Sadaam Hussein is actively pursuing proliferating such weapons in question, as well as getting them in the hands of those not afraid to use them.

Here is why Sadaam is a threat to my safety as well as my family and friends, and perhaps a reason you may want to consider him a threat to your family.

1)Sadaam is actively pursuing nuclear weaponry.
2)Sadaam hands over said weapon to one of many terrorist organizations that share Sadaam's contempt for the U.S.
3)The weapon is loaded into the deep trenches of a cargo ship destined for a major U.S. port.
4)Nuclear weapon is detonated as soon as said cargo ship docs in port, even before the cargo is unloaded.
5)Half of another major U.S. city is destroyed along with 10s of thousands of lives.

Given the state of our ports, if you think they are anything but swiss cheese, you are giving yourself false comfort. This is a very plausible scenario. Given the writing on the wall, why wait for another catastrophy? If you haven't read the released intel provided by the Iraqi minister defector that used to run Sadaam's nuclear/chemical weapons programs, you would be well served to check into this info. The scary thing about this info, is that it is only a glimpse.

If this is the official reason, well it holds an ocean of water in my opinion.
 
Originally posted by hyuan:
I'm not defending Saddam. However, my belief is that Saddam is not a threat to my personal safety today. We may have other reasons to pop Saddam, but the "official" reason doesn't hold water in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It is a good thing that Saddam is not a threat "today" as you would be watching live feed of the aftermath of a nuclear explosion in our country. You would see people in nuclear radiation suits. You would see experts on television describing what fallout is and how bad it will be. You will see burning, melting body parts, people screaming and crying, little kids looking for their parents. The picture of destruction on your television would make 9/11 look like a small house fire in comparison.

Why not prevent the above scenario? What is the reason to not do anything? Should we wait until Saddam completes his WMD program? Do you think he is going to use his WMD for defensive purposes?

I think we all know what he will do with the weapons the minute they are ready for use. He is going to use them on Israel and the United States.
 
Originally posted by Sig:
Here is why Sadaam is a threat to my safety as well as my family and friends, and perhaps a reason you may want to consider him a threat to your family.

1)Sadaam is actively pursuing nuclear weaponry.
2)Sadaam hands over said weapon to one of many terrorist organizations that share Sadaam's contempt for the U.S.
3)The weapon is loaded into the deep trenches of a cargo ship destined for a major U.S. port.
4)Nuclear weapon is detonated as soon as said cargo ship docs in port, even before the cargo is unloaded.
5)Half of another major U.S. city is destroyed along with 10s of thousands of lives.
Click to expand...

Sig, your argument is very well constructed, and the scenario you posit is definitely plausible.

However, given that many nuclear assets have already been lost throughout the former Soviet Union, wouldn't those pose a greater than Saddam's current proliferation (or lack thereof)?

If the concern is that would-be attackers would buy from Saddam, then detonate said bomb here, then we should be even more worried about the bombs that have already been sold.

Given billions of tax dollars, wouldn't that money be better spent addressing the existing problem rather than invading and possibly occupying another country?

The whole reason the international community debates the use of force against Iraq is that at the end of the day, nobody knows how close or how far Saddam is from nuclear capability.

Lives will be lost. If they are to be lost, then I personally would sleep easier if I had more evidence of an impending threat. In this case, the disturbing scenario you paint could happen today even in the absence of Saddam.
 
I for one, would rather pay $4 a gallon and seek other source for energy.

And yes I am critisizing the move because I fear terrorism will increase. It would be stupid not to consider the outcome of our actions. I'd rather not live like the people in Israel where it's becoming never ending cycle of meaningless death. Also, we are using/will be using billions of dollars toward terrorism prevention etc. If there's less terrorism, maybe we can use some of that money to fix up the economy a bit?

I do belive that Saddam is a threat but not big enough to attack at this moment and besides that, I also believe that the whole international community has to recognize him as a major threat before any major action. Shouldn't US use the resource to solidify the evidence against Saddam before wasting time to put up a plan for occupation in Iraq? I have not seen any solid evidence of Iraq financing major terrorist activities. Maybe i'm just misinformed here but I have not heard anything. Anyway, good to hear different opinions. Thanks.
 
Originally posted by hyuan:
Sig, your argument is very well constructed, and the scenario you posit is definitely plausible.

However, given that many nuclear assets have already been lost throughout the former Soviet Union, wouldn't those pose a greater than Saddam's current proliferation (or lack thereof)?

We have had resources dedicated to tracking Soviet nuclear arms since the 1950's. If anything, our efforts were increased when the USSR broke up.

If the concern is that would-be attackers would buy from Saddam, then detonate said bomb here, then we should be even more worried about the bombs that have already been sold.

Given billions of tax dollars, wouldn't that money be better spent addressing the existing problem rather than invading and possibly occupying another country?

The whole reason the international community debates the use of force against Iraq is that at the end of the day, nobody knows how close or how far Saddam is from nuclear capability.

Lives will be lost. If they are to be lost, then I personally would sleep easier if I had more evidence of an impending threat. In this case, the disturbing scenario you paint could happen today even in the absence of Saddam.
Click to expand...



[This message has been edited by Edwardo (edited 15 October 2002).]
 
"However, given that many nuclear assets have already been lost throughout the former Soviet Union, wouldn't those pose a greater than Saddam's current proliferation (or lack thereof)?"
snipped from hyuan's post.

hyaun-

In a round about way, you have hit one of two nails on the head. When I wrote proliferation, I should have been more specific. Not only is Sadaam desperately trying to make his own weapons grade fissile material (lots of evidence supporting this), he is also trying to acquire existing fissile material.

So yes, the missing/un-accounted ex-Soviet Union nuclear assets are a greater near-term threat. Why a greater threat? Primarily, because Sadaam is trying desperately to acquire them off the blackest of black markets. This is the stuff that the CIA will never release to the public. It only makes for good PR press when shipment is intercepted. On the flip side, if they release a news bite that a shipment got through, the chaos the would ensue would paralyze our economy as well as our citizens. Additionally, nobody in the world has a 100% success rate of intercepting illegal trade. It just isn't possible. So if even one deal out of 100 is successful, it is still incredibly scary when you consider the hands this stuff ends up in. Even if Sadaam never personally touches the stuff, he expends efforts to effectively broker the deals into the hands of those that will carry out his wishes.

The other reason it is a more near term danger as you stated, is that to refine uranium, plutonium, or other potential nuclear weapon material to the point it is truly weapons grade fissile material is a long process. Remember those highly specialized centrifugal tubes that were intercepted en route to Iraq? If you don't think Sadaam is creative, take a look at the number of middle men these things had to go through before they were ready for shipment to Iraq. It is the same concept of using multiple shell companies to launder money.

If left alone, once he has the ability to refine his own fissile material to weapons grade, then there is a huge problem. Hence, if we get him out of there right now, both short term and long-term nuclear threats from him are squashed.

The unfortunate truth about current refining equipment is that it no longer requires giant machines. It can be done by machinery about the same size as some of our household appliances. In country the size of Texas, how is a team going to find a refridgerator in the middle of the dessert? The odds are like winning the Powerball Lottery. And those oddds are with full access, which has never and will never be the case. The whole inspection thing is a joke.

Now if we could have 10 different teams of inspectors there, strategically placed around the country that could launch inspections without any notice at any site, including these so called "soveirgn sites", then we might get somewhere. But this is nowhere near the realm of possibility with Sadaam. In the past we had to give notice of when/where the inspection team will go. With most of Sadaam's assets now mobile, the night before their arrival... under the cover of darkness from Satellites, the mobile assets would move to another area until the inspection team moved on. If the problem of prior notice is lifted, then he will store them in the soveirgn sites. If the access problem to soveirgn sites is lifted he'll send the mobile units to the middle of the desert and wait out the inspection teams. Inspections will never be effective with Sadaam's regime unless they are done in a similar fashion to what I suggested.

Their govt. has to be removed. His rule is based on keeping his people ignorant, starved, and angry at a scapegoat. Of course they won't stand up to him. Everyone, including family members, that even hinted in dissent have all been killed.

On your final point of saying that my scenario could happen today with or without Sadaam. I agree 100%. My contention is that we would be fools not to take care of the one problem we know exists. And we would be fools again if we ignore others as they materialize. The biggest complaint after 9/11 from both sides of the political spectrum is that we had a lot of indicators leading up to that fateful day that resulted in little action to extinguish Al Qaeda before hand. Not too long ago, another nation offered the U.S. Bin Laden on a silver platter, but we didn't do anything about it. Granted Clinon's hands were somewhat tied at the time with some of the same issues that tie our hands now with Iraq, but nonetheless everyone's hindsight is yelling, "Why oh why didn't we stop it then?"

The worst part is, that the forward looking indicators for 9/11 are tame in comparison to the forward looking indicators coming out of Iraq.



[This message has been edited by Sig (edited 15 October 2002).]
 
Originally posted by Edwardo:
It is a good thing that Saddam is not a threat "today" as you would be watching live feed of the aftermath of a nuclear explosion in our country.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this logic. There are several countries that have the potential to threaten the our safety and that of our neighbors. In and of itself, this is not a justification.

By this token, we should also attack Iran, Syria, and North Korea. How do we decide who is worth attacking in order to buy an insurance policy for our freedoms?

In a more extreme case, we might as well attack Pakistan since the militant muslims could take over the country and use the country's nukes as well. If we invade every country on the planet, our security will be guaranteed!

Recently, I've been reading about a particular country. It has an enormous nuclear arsenal and has done extensive research in chemical and biological weapons warfare. The smart bombs they use cause birth defects in the regions where they are deployed due to low-level radiation from the targeting scheme. This country is run by a president whose trying to get his people to stand behind him, as he plans an unprovoked war. Alas, 42 percent of his people oppose the use of ground forces. (http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s688257.htm)

We should pop these guys too, before they cause some serious problems. They could launch an attack on the other side of the globe if they were upset enough.

The point is, (and no I am not implying we are a terrorist state), is that potential is not a good argument for invasion. Evidence of a bonafide threat is a stronger one.

At the end of the day, its all a matter of perspective. Actions need to be justified. We cannot predicate our actions based on what we think can happen, or what we believe is possible. No man or country should have the power to unililaterally decide these matters which amount to life and death.


[This message has been edited by hyuan (edited 15 October 2002).]
 
I would contend that to say this is truly unilateral is a bit naive. The way in which world leaders interact with eachother vs. their public statements is vastly different. Everything in the middle east takes the method of "Field of Dreams" logic: Build it, and they will come."
Before Afghanistan operations began, the same unilateral complaints and murmurs were tossed around in abundance. Then look what actually came to fruition. Obviously, we led the effort, but it was far from unilateral. However, even if you don't take into account the bandwagon Johnny come Lately's, if we took a snapshot today... it is not unilateral. In addition nothing has happened yet. If you can see how the events will play out, I will pay you very well for investment advice : )

In addition with this logic, you yourself are basing judgement on what you think may happen. The calling for actions to be justified that haven't even taken place yet doesn't quite connect the dots for me.

There are much greater things at work than what is presented by most of the media.

Fortunately, we live in America because your last post would have just got you killed if you were an Iraqi. That said, mine would too : )


[This message has been edited by Sig (edited 15 October 2002).]
 
Originally posted by Sig:
I would contend that to say this is truly unilateral is a bit naive...
Click to expand...


I am no longer sure if we are discussing the same thing. The purpose of my previous post was to illustrate that acting today based on what you think could happen needs to be justifed by more than "I think so" and more than "insurance policy."

If we make decisions by conjecture, many other countries could also pose a threat to the United States.

I am not sure what part of my argument is not connecting dots with you. However, I think this statement is reasonable, no?

If we attack Iraq alone without international support, then we can incur the cost of the war, and we incur the consequences. This is what I define as unilateral. I think that's pretty black and white right? I do not agree with acting unilaterally without evidence and proper justification and without international support.

Who gave us the right to invade a country because we "think" they have bombs and we "think" they can be a threat to us?

This is the question I ask in response to Ed's post. I reject the idea that we should do so based on conjecture (see paragraph 1 and original post).

Your response, does not help to answer it. Sig, please clarify why this country has the right to deem another country a threat and to call for an invasion based on what we think might happen?

As for my hypothesis being conjecture, that was precisely the point. No decisions should be based on conjecture.

[This message has been edited by hyuan (edited 15 October 2002).]
 
To the inquiry of what right does another country have to invade Iraq with force. Well, I am not quite sure where to find the original version, but I highly recommend reading the original UN treaty signed by Sadaam to end the 91 Gulf War. The full text of those resolutions will spell out all of the justification if you are looking for from the legal perspective. In addition, every resolution in the treaty has been broken. Every one, repeatedly. Unfortuneately, the UN in it's current form is a lame duck and ineffective. The next few years will determine if it goes the same way as the League of Nations. Right now this body is an incredible dissappointment. That said, the resoltuions will be rewritten in the next few months.

There is obivously much more, but we get to hear about he obvious stuff everyday in the news anyway. The obvious bores me. It is only when the obvious is minimized that it gets interesting.... enter the complexity of human psychology.

In stating that calling something that hasn't happened yet a "unilateral" action is naive, I mean to say that two things:

1) I contend it is impossible to call something that hasn't happened yet unilateral

2)Even if it did happen tomorrow it wouldn't be unlateral.
*Publically, there is a list of countries that are providing **various levels** of support. England, Italy, Spain, Romania, Qatar, Kuwait, Israel are those that I remember off the top of my head. To say that these countries don't count would be false minimization.

The following is a complete aside:
I look at international policy is the equivalent of playing chess on an 3-D octaganol playing surface with 16 teams. The true complexity of cause/effect, if/then/elses of every move is generally only understood by the public for the first level consequences of these decisions/actions, & policies.

For example, we mess with Iraq... then the Middle East becomes more upset with the U.S. On first blush this is bad, so we shouldn't do it (obviously I am over simplifying here for time sake). What goes under appreciated by most of the population is the 6th 7th 8th tier consequences and their associated if, then , else scenarios.... and so on. It is truly a fascinating puzzle! For you mensa types who enjoy complicated puzzles, you can spend hours upon hours trying to wrap your mind around these scenarios. It is almost as intellectually stimulating as trying to grasp the conceptual kinetics of the universe.. which is by far my favorite complex problem that in the end always leaves me grasping for straws. My message is to look 15 steps past the first tier results for each possible outcome. Though it gets choatic with that many directions to chase, you will probably impress yourself with the different things you come up with, regardless of your conclusions. To be fair, do the same thing for your own suggestions. This method of analysis has led me to change my position on numerous significant issues.


[This message has been edited by Sig (edited 15 October 2002).]
 
Hyuan,

We do not just "think" they have bombs. Their are intelligence reports from the CIA as well as British Intelligence which show that Saddam is making progress with his WMD program. Both agencies were fairly confident that Saddam would have a nuclear bomb ready for deployment in less that five years.

As Sig pointed out, Saddam is making efforts to attain weapons grade plutonium from the former Soviet States. If he were to attain said material in sufficient quantities, he may be able to shorten that five years.

Hyuan, you seem to think that the US is just a huge powerful bully attacking some defenseless little nation for no reason at all. I contend that there is a reason and the best one at that...defense. If we don't take Saddam out, he will attack someone. He is currently a menace to the international community and in five years, if left unchecked, he will become a serious threat to said community.

I like Sig's thoughts on the multidimensional nature of international affairs. I really sat back and thought about things after trying to project what country A would do if country B did this to country C. Without going through my thought process, I will say this. If we take Saddam out now, we will save many lives. Most of those lives will be the people of Iraq.
 
In my opinion I don't think allowing Saddam get a weapon of mass destruction is a real threat. Before any more discussion let me clarify my position. In the case that Saddam might get one nuclear weapon, he might have a chance of destroying one major city if that. However, the reprecussion for firing a nuclear weapon would result in Iraq being completely annihilated. The U.S. has tons and tons of nuclear weapons waiting to be launched given the proper opportunity and reasons. Saddam could not be that stupid to sign his country's own death warrant.
 
Sadaam will never put his people ahead of himself. Never, never, never. Never has before, never will he in the future.

Even if we were to completely ignore the utter brutality he has shown to the Iraqi people, it's tough but for now we will ignore it : ), Sadaam's willingness to continue and begin new construction for his "soveirgn presidential palaces" using the monies that are intended to feed the Iraqis displays the worst kind of egotism. These palaces make the white house look like Motel 6. In addition they are laced with hidden, unblueprinted underground storage rooms for his mobile weapons equipment. That's another issue I guess. But the point is that he is using the money for his own purposes instead of the intended use... feed the starving. Then again, he is better off when his people are angry at a scapegoat. Hungry people= Angry People.

The underlying psychology of Sadaam is that he is apacolyptic. If he knows that his days are numbered, he more than any other leader in the world will inflict as much harm on his enemies before he falls with whatever means he has. In his mind if he dies, there might as well be no Iraq. It is sick, twisted and very unfortunate. If that happened today, Israel and Kuwait will probably be victims of chemical weapons. This of course will be terrible. However, thinking beyond that, if the world waits several years, the likelyhood that those chemical warheads now become nuclear warheads is more likely. The consequences of that day could truly be a world ending exchange. Not something I would like to see.

If you dig deeper, you will see that Sadaam would almost prefer that when he goes down that he does something that calls for a response that wipes out his entire country. Why? As twisted as it is, he relizes that if someone like the U.S. attacks Iraq with our most devastating weapons that the whole world would hate us, not just the Middle East. Groups of countries would most likely band together and institute economic embargos and possibly military responses. Of course the US strategists are very aware of this, and don't want things to get to such a dramatic point that we must respond to a nuclear attack.

With Sadaam in power the world has to pick our poison. Do we want to endure some ugliness now, which may include chemical attacks on surrounding nations or do we wait and endure a potentially apacolyptic scenario years down the road. Whichever is chosen, Sadaam will not go quietly.

As a side note there was information released today aobut Sadaam's recent efforts to purchase missile fuel from private companies in China. Put on my sarcasm hat, I wonder why Sadaam needs missile fuel? I have heard him and his ministers say many times that he has destroyed all of his missiles. Boy, that's strange. : )
 

Similar threads

S
Are you a zombie or an american
Replies
19
Views
2K
Sarge
S
D
The "War on Terror"
Replies
12
Views
2K
huckster
H
myf16
2004 Tour de California diary
Replies
0
Views
3K
myf16
myf16
matteni
Pimp my Garage Episode 2 - Bend Pak Strikes Back!
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
44K
Airwolf NSX
Airwolf NSX
MAJOR STONER
How a War With Iraq Will Change the World
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
MAJOR STONER
MAJOR STONER
Back
Top