Don’t worry, be happy
It’s regularly trotted out by the pro-war crowd that an American invasion of Iraq would be all sweetness and light for the innocent Iraqis who are currently subjected to Saddam’s brutal regime. Perhaps they should consider this:
One of the most respected nuclear weapons analysts in the United States says he has been shown documents which confirm the US military is considering using nuclear weapons in a war with Iraq.
Professor William Arkin from John Hopkins University in Washington has told ABC radio’s PM program the Bush administration has removed the special status from its nuclear arsenal and has put them back on the shelf alongside conventional weapons.
“I think there’s no question the Bush administration has given nuclear weapons a new shine, that they have decided that not only are nuclear weapons important to deter Saddam Hussein or other opponents of the United States from possibly using nuclear weapons, but but also that those nuclear weapons might be useful military instruments to actually thwart them from using weapons of mass destruction, and that’s really the departure from what we’ve seen in the past,” he said.
It’s really quite disturbing that a nuclear attack is being considered. I shudder to think what life would be like for those Iraqis who are “saved” by irradiation — not to mention the risks posed to Australian troops serving in the region.
War should be a last resort. In this case, it seems to be Bush’s first resort, and now he’s trying to work backwards and gain the Security Council authority that he should have had in the first place.
Blair hasn’t ruled them out either, though Howard has been unequivocal in saying that we wouldn’t have anything to do with the use of them and that Australian troops would not be involved. Hope that’s a core committment.
But of course they’re only considering using *tactical* nukes, so it’s OK. Which is sort of like saying it’s OK to rape a woman if you only stick it in a little bit.
Turns out “Dr. Strangelove” was a documentary.
If Bush continues down this path, notwithstanding my broad support for regime change, he will before long find himself defending an unjust military action.
More context for the nukes plan can be found in this LA Times article from August last year by the same William Arkin quoted in the report Robert cites.
Ostensibly there is nothing new in this latest report.
Arkin is critical of any plans to use nukes, but it looks as though such plans are part of the typical US Defense Department “plan for every contingency”. Still, you might not think so. Worth a look.
Maybe the point is that they’re worried if there is a war (and you can debate the merits behind that somewhere else) Saddam will pull all his weapons of mass destruction out of the Baghdad office of Storage King and start raining them down on his neighbours.
They just need to have all bases covered. Not saying it’s right or wrong, but it makes sense if there’s going to be a war on.
So maybe Iraq is going to “get” some nukes earlier than we thought. I think “tactical” nukes won’t end up being part of Johnny’s core commitment - “I meant the really big ones.”
That LA Times article about Bush’s “contingency” plans includes such gems as, in regards to Iran, Iraq, Syria, N. Korea and Libya, “All have long-standing hostility towards the United States and its security partners. All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and have active WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs.” Those are some bold claims by folk who can’t even prove Iraq has WMDs or propogandizes every bit of information.
It gets worse: “Now, nuclear strategy seems to be viewed through the prism of Sept. 11. For one thing, the Bush administration’s faith in old-fashioned deterrence is gone. It no longer takes a superpower to pose a dire threat to Americans.” Now that underground bunkers are out of the question, will we see a return of “duck and cover”?
Maybe also it’s been deliberately leaked by the White House to put the fear of jebus into Hussein?
Don’t see why he’d care though, he’ll be well underground at that point.
OK, for the sake of argument, let’s say that Bush backs down.
Then what?
Let’s look at Saddam Hussein’s past behaviour. He’s attacked neighbouring countries not once, but twice. He’s used both Nerve Gas and Mustard Gas on civilians. Just ask Amnesty International about his record of torturing opponents and their families to death. And of course, during the Gulf War, he launched missile attacks on Israel, just to try to get them involved.
If he’s not removed for breaking the agreements he made to disarm at the end of the Gulf War, then he also has carte blanche to do it all again. Of course, he might not. He might be developing a nuclear programme just for deterence of an unprovoked invasion, from, say, Monaco. The cynical might say to deter anyone from interfering the next time he wants to expand the borders of Greater Iraq. No chance of that though, is there? Besides, if he decides to take his place as the Great Arab Leader and New Caliph by nuking Tel Aviv, who cares what happens to the Jews? If we want cheap oil, we should jettison all links with the Israelis anyway. Then the local Arab dictators and Oligarchs would be our pals.
And as for Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction programmes - he’s said that he’s gotten rid of them. He’s offered no evidence of that, we just have to trust him. As for links to Al Qaeda - there’s no proof of any, or not much. Not conclusive proof. We just have to trust him that he won’t give them any such weapons again. After all, he’s got such a good record of keeping agreements, right?
Meanwhile - and in continuing contravention of the peace treaty after the Guif War - Iraq continues to fire at US and UK planes patrolling the no-fly zones under UN mandate. That’s the reason he can’t allow UN U-2 recon planes to overfly Iraq, because they might get mistaken for other UN planes that he’s firing at (I’m not joking). So he’s offering total co-operation, right?
Seriously, what does this guy have to do so we resume hostilities? Genuine question - is there any conceivable set of circumstances that warrants war, and if not, why don’t we unilaterally disarm? After all, with Iraq heading the UN Disarmament committee, and Libyan Strongman Quaddafi heading the UN Human Rights Commission, we’re in such excellent hands.
Look, like everyone else with two neurons to fire together, I’m deeply disturbed by the Jingoism in the USA. I’m definitely not a believer in following the US’s lead in all things. Normally, I’d be condemning strongly any unilateral action by Bush or anyone else. But enough is enough, already!
Yes, yes, Saddam is an evil man. We’ve been told a thousand times, and all the arguments for his removal are rooted in some deep misbegotten truth somewhere. Yes, Saddam gassed his own people (with our chemistry sets). Yes, Saddam fired at US planes (who were only innocently bombing radar towers). Yes, Saddam tried to invade Kuwait (with American-bought weapons). Yes, even to an evil power-for-power’s-sake dictator like him - since you still seem to believe despite overwhelming odds that he’s a religious nut that favors clandestine terrorist organizations of that particular flavor - nuclear weapons would be feasable as a deterrant (against America).
No, I can’t imagine any circumstances currently that demands our unilateral invasion of Iraq. Or anything with the terms “unilateral” or “US” involved. A better question would be, why now? Why are we so up in arms against this guy now? Why not four years ago, when we pulled back our UN inspectors? Is he really that much more of a threat? If so, why won’t Rumsfeld or Powell ever show us proof? Where is this smoking gun? Leaking test-tube? Missing helicopter, anything! Is this about the oil? Kinda.
If Bush is the military purist he’s set the country up to be, then he’d want to reduce America’s need for Arab oil AND dominate their oil economy at the same time. It’d make perfect strategic sense, and mean billions upon billions of American siphoning off the top while the average Iraqi won’t know the difference in this wild wacky world of regime changes and installed dictators. I mean, if you’re looking for precedents, then Iraq is just a failed British colony, and so just like the Phillipines, Cuba, Vietnam and other failed colonies, America rushes in to ‘liberate’ the poor souls into our own great economy. Which could use the help.
So enough isn’t enough. Enough is never enough, and if anyone’s going to depose Saddam, it sure as hell shouldn’t be Bush!
OK, at least we agree on one thing. That’s a good start.
Rather than believing what “we’re told” why not just examine the evidence? There’s enough of it. Don’t rely on US-Administration Spin-doctors, nor the Terminally Politically Correct ones either. They all have axes to grind.
I agree, we should have blocked the export of machinery for making pesticides, machinery that was used to make Nerve Gas instead. Of course, the sanctions currently in place to block these items have meant death to thousands (Malaria etc), but probably less than would have been killed without them. I pleade guilty to squeamishness and optimism.
Ummm… the firing came first. Why bomb the Radars unless they were being used to fire at the planes? It’s not as if even the Iraqis claim that they didn’t fire first.
He didn’t just try to invade, he did it. The Americans (and others) threw him out. And your evidence for American-bought weapons is…? Look at the videos from Iraqi and other sources of the Gulf War. We see Iraqis using Russian-designed T-55s, Russian-designed T-72s, Chinese-designed Type 59s (all tanks), Chinese-designed Type 63s, Russian-designed BMP-1s, French-designed VAB-150s (all APCs), French-designed AMXs, etc etc. Not a single US vehicle among em. The contracts that bought these, and the countries that sold them, are a matter of public record. None involve the USA, but still this furphy persists. Probably because people can’t be bothered with the alphabet-soup of numbers and letters for military equipment - a Tank is a Tank, whether it actually be a Chinese Armoured Personnel Carrier sold by North Korea, or a Russian Main battle Tank from Rumania.
But of course you have an unanswerable argument : if we did the wrong thing in the past, Of Course we should contiunue doing the same wrong things in the future. Heaven Forefend that we try to correct a situation even partially of our own making!
Religious? Yes, when it suits him. See his sudden miraculous conversion to a “true Believer” in the Gulf war. Nut? Yes, we can agree on that one. Certainly an opportunist who would use any means he could - be they Islamofascists, Radical Trotskyites or Fundamentalist Christians, who would work to his ends.
Fair Enough. We disagree, but you’re both honest and reasonable here. In other circumstances, I’d agree - and anything smacking of Unilateralism bothers me a lot, be it US, French or Australian. But sometimes it’s neccessary - viz the Australian unilateral intervention in East Timor. Remember, the UN backup came later.
Of course we paid the price for our presumption at Bali. There’s an argument to say that we shouldn’t have gone in, that it made us vulnerable. There’s also an argument saying we should all immediately convert to Islam, that would also protect us against many threats.
Oh I totally agree, we should have gone in earlier. But that’s hindsight. Anyone who’s even remotely rational cannot think that War should be anything other than a last resort. We - and I mean I - hoped that sanctions and inspections would work. they haven’t. And at worst, I hoped that even if Saddam was left alone, no-one would use anthrax or nukes for terrorism. Well, I was partially wrong there too, I have no wish to keep on the blinkers for the next part too.
Inasmuch as the longer he has, the more likely he is to get (more) Nukes, yes. But more importantly, there was a little incident in September 2001 that has changed our perceptions. We now recognise threats we didn’t before. They existed, we just were too optimistic. Myself included. Isn’t Hindsight wonderful?
What more do you want? Really?
Iraq: “We have no WMDs”.
Inspectors: “What about these artillery shells we’ve just found”
Iraq:”Apart from those”.
Inspectors: “And what happened to these 3000 tonnes of nerve agents you had 2 years ago.”
Iraq: “We got rid of them”.
Inspectors: “How?”
Iraq:”Prove we didn’t.”
Inspectors: “What about these fresh documents we’ve found detailing a nuclear programme?”
Iraq: “Those are old, we stopped that years ago.”
Inspectors: “They’re dated two months ago”.
Iraq: “They’re all forgeries, you’re all in the pay of Zionists, there’s nothing to see etc etc”.
At current rates, the Inspectors would take 300 years to find just what they know was in place when they got kicked out. So how much longer should they be given? Not a rhetorical question, a serious one.
Bush has set the country up to be some sort of militarist imperial power? I must have missed the massive increases in the US military since the end of the Cold War. Scrapping all those nuclear subs and missiles was obviously just a smoke screen concealing the millions of Black Helicopters pouring off the production lines, the secret introduction of conscription, the massive increase in aircraft production etc.
Sorry, got carried away there. So your theory is that he wants to take over the world, but is so incompetent he can’t even organise that, right?
Reducing dependence on Arab Oil would mean increasing profits to Texas Oilmen like Bush, so I guess you’re right. If he’s such a militarist, he’d certainly be doing this. He’s not, so he’s not. Thanks for making the point so well, I hadn’t thought of this argument. One thing puzzles me though - rather than going after Iraq he should be going after Saudi Arabia et al, who have both more Oil and a far smaller military. No, the Dominance bit doesn’t work, either.
Oh I agree. The Americans are such Imperialists, look at how they’re still occupying France, Germany, etc. who kowtow to their every whim. Look how they stayed in the Phillipines despite the wishes of the populace to withdraw. And Afghanistan - look at the massive wealth that’s been looted from the joint, how US companies have taken the whole place over, without any Afghan involvement in their own Government. And what about the secret plain-clothes CIA operatives on every street corner of Sydney, keeping the populace in line? The lack of press freedom, as shown by the unanimous support of the Australian populace for everything American?
Oh wait a second… this is the exact opposite of what actually happened. And Saudi Arabia, for all its Oil wealth, has a smaller GNP than Spain. Want to guess what Iraq’s is?
Ah, here we have the crux of your argument. It’s more important that a Conservative/Republican/Liberal not get any kudos than a dictator be stopped.
Were you aware of this? I doubt it - you’ve argued rationally, and am sure you’re just as dissapointed with my “unquestioning slavish adoration of all things American” as I am with your lack of insight. But I don’t believe in brown-nosing the US any more than you think Saddam is really just a misunderstood victim of the International Jewish Conspiracy. I do think we should go in, preferrably with UN backing, but if neccessary, not. Any lack of UN backing would reflect far more on the UN as a going concern than on ourselves.
Actually, I agree to some extent that “it shouldn’t be Bush”. It shouldn’t just be Bush, it should be all of us. But some are so blinded by partisan politics that they can’t see this. Some - like the (Australian) Democrats - see their opposition as Idealism, and in many cases, I’m sure they’re right. But not in all. The same could be said for most appeasers in 1938. Some - like Crean - believe in having a bob each way, and scoring political points about warmongering and Howard lickspittling to Bush while waiting for yet another UN resolution so he can reverse their position while retaining his diminishing credibility. (I hope he’s just being cynical, rather than so ignorant he’s unaware of how long it takes to set up a military operation. After all, a healthy opposition is neccessary for a healthy Democracy, and he’s supposed to be a credible alternative PM.) But some - like Little Johnnie H. - appear to believe in doing the right thing, no matter how unpopular in the short term. Not the first time - remember Bali? The cynics might say he’s going to retire anyway, and doesn’t give a damn about being re-elected. Anyone who thinks that Australian involvement in Iraq at this stage is a vote-winner obviously hasn’t looked at the polls. Electorally, it’s poison, as the “Liberals against the War” realise. Playing Politics isn’t just confined to the Left. Or Right.
I understand your position, but methinks you’re giving Saddam more credit than he’s worth. Sounds like he’s a wily multi-armed spectre that can fit any ideological role for anyone without them suspecting his hypocrisy all the while getting billions upon billions of dollars from thin air to fund doomsday devices with which to throw at Israel and the US, with a couple dozen to spare for his tenuous (but secretive and real, you’re sure of that) connections to terrorists and unconfirmed secret nuclear silos, into which he will store any additions to his hardware.
Which is what I can’t get about your post: (more) nukes? (more) nukes?! That’s a pretty big stretch of the imagination if 11 empty warheads is our smoking gun, since every attempt that he seems to have made through some contractor has been rooted and failed and most of his reactors destroyed. Without bombing him. And about bombing him, how could you say Saddam fired first? The US really hasn’t stopped bombing him since Desert Storm. But hey, what’s one bunker/silo/communications center every 2 weeks to a month for 10 years?
But we did fund his military, and we funded Iran’s military, and the rest of the Arab nations bought from us directly, and we made some $56 billion dollars arming that region to the teeth, so it’s not like we can cite squeamishness, optimism, or any idealistic virtue when every incident comes with a warning that it might blow up the entire region.
So again I ask, why not before? Why even bother citing Sept 11th as the reason for all this? What did Saddam have to do with Sept 11th and how will deposing him stop terrorism, not bring more terrorism from the bloodshed, or at least show the Arabs we’re not out to bomb the crap out of them just to cover up the fact that we’ve been doing so all along?
Exactly….
No, that bit’s obvious.or rather the Oil that’s either been allowed to be sold (quite a few tens of billions there) or evaded the blockade (unknown, probably a lot less unless Jordan has been telling porkies). How many Billion-dollar “Presidential Palaces” have been erected in the last 10 years? By my count, 12. gardens landscaped in the shape of Saddam’s Thumbprint. Have you seen the videos? A lot of that money, supposedy to be spent for the benefit of the Iraqi people buying medicines etc has mysteriously been spent elsewhere. Ridiculous isn’t it? As ridiculous as the super-gun (similar to the German V-3) dismantled at the end of the Gulf War. Read the Inspectors report regarding the Iraqi Biowar programme, the stuff that they knew Iraq had which has now “evaporated into thin air”. Yes, I’d call Smallpox a Doomsday Weapon. Of course this might all be smoke and mirrors, you’d expect the US to begin a panicked programme of innoculations and mass-production of vaccine if they truly believed this to be a possibility. Oh wait, they have done, haven’t they? Hundreds of Americans will get injured - the vaccine’s not particularly safe - and some will probably die. But Bush volunteered to be one of the first innoculated.
Sure? As sure as I know the Sun rises in the East? No. As sure as I know that the US Agricultural lobby is trying to restrict Australian Farm imports to the US? Yes. They’ve said as much in the past, there’s evidence to show that they’ve contributed a lot of money to “Political Action Funds” for unspecified purposes, and should they start denying it (as some have recently) they should be treated with Horse-laughs.
Then again, maybe you believe them. And maybe that terrorist who “committed suicide” with 32 bullet wounds in Baghdad (or have the Security forces admitted to shooting him? Sorry, I haven’t kept up) was just a tourist, all on his own.
As regards the “secret Nuclear Silos” then February 5th will show how much the US knows - or rather, how much they’re prepared to reveal they know - about such things. Sorry, I have no inside access to the CIA and NSA’s data. I have to rely on what’s been said, and what Howard, Blair and company (who do have such access, albeit limited) are doing. It might all be an Illuminati plot for all I know. What I do know is that Iraq has been caught lying about such things repeatedly, and that thousands of tonnes of material can’t evasporate into thin air.
Before they were found, what evidence was there that they existed? A dozen empty warheads on their own prove nothing other than to cast doubt on the veracity of any source that denies the possibility of their existence. If we find another dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand, will that prove beyond all possible doubt that there’s still a Chemical warfare programme in iraq? No. If we find hundreds or thousands of tonnes of nerve gas, will that prove beyond all possible doubt that it was intended for filling these shells? No. If Anthrax of unknown provenance (but capable of being produced only in the US, the UK or Iraq) turns up in US cities, does that prove such a programme exists? (Sorry, we’ve had that one, haven’t we) No. If we had a video of Saddam pushing a button causing the launch of a chemical warhead, would that be absolute proof? No, videos can and have been faked. Where do we draw the line, and say that the risk of inaction is greater than the known certainty of Iraqi, US and Australian deaths in case of war? Some would say “never”. Some would say that there’s no absolute proof that Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11, or that Islamofascists were responsible for Bali. And I can’t say they’re entirely wrong. But at some point you have to say that the evidence is so overwhelmingly compelling that you must treat it as established fact. Apart from the French-supplied Osirak - which the Israelis unilaterally bombed awhile ago, thereby saving the world from a nuclear threat. Even the Iraqis now admit that it was for producing Plutonium, despite their protestations at the time. And it’s interesting that you say “most” reactors.
*Sigh*. If you want to change the definition like that, didn’t Iraq fire first when it invaded Kuwait? When did the Iraqis stop firing at Coalition planes then? Who’s this “we” bit? What has Australia done in this regard? For that matter, I’d be interested in that figure of $56 billion. Not that I don’t believe you, heck, I’d believe a larger figure, I just want to know some facts. I’m ignorant here, and factual evidence could either strengthen my argument, or (more valuably) cause me to change my opinions. As regrads answering you, I plead changes of circumstances, the Cold war, and bloody stupidity and greed on the part of various nations, the US included. This seems a little incoherent. But then again, the situation of “no-fly zones”, bombing of Iraqi air defences while not being at war etc is incoherent too. To answer your main point, the reasons for not going after Iraq before are much the same as the reasons for not going after Hitler when he re-occupied the Rheinland (it was German territory after all), when he annexed Austria (a popular move with the antiSemitic Austrians), when he gobbled up the Sudentenland (just protecting ethnic Germans from persecution by the beastly Czechs, and his last territorial demand of the world), and when he then took the rest of Czechoslovakia (a mongrel state created by the discredited treaty of Versaiiles, and which couldn’t have survived anyway without the Sudentenland). A valid question when he invaded Poland was “Why now? Why not before?” Any comparison with Hitler is automatically suspect - it’s often the last refuge of those without a coherent argument - but in this particular case, it’s apt. We didn’t go after Hitler when he gassed people for the same reason we didn’t go after Saddam when he gassed people: he was seen as a bulwark against a greater threat. Time changed our views. Not that Stalin suddenly became a “good guy”, just the lesser of two evils. We were wrong pre-1938, and did something about it in 1939.
To repeat: no-one with two neurons to fire consecutively wants war, if there’s a viable alternative. But the alternative has to be viable. Unless Saddam suffers a Pauline conversion, or goes into exile, the risk has become unacceptable now - and in fact, as you so rightly point out, it’s been that way for some time. We should have gone in earlier.
The Saudis, Kuwaitis, Qataris, Bahreinis, and Omanis don’t seem to think this. Or at least, that’s what their Governments say, who knows what the people actually think? Have a look at the Saudi line at Arab News. Prince Sultan is very anti-war, but others aren’t. None think the US is out to bomb Arabs as such, they just want the US to stop helping the Jews avoid extermination.
Just a small point. Saddam invaded Kuwait after repeatdly going to OPEC and the UN complaining that the Kuwatis were stealing Iraqi oil and weren’t prepaired to offer any compensation or stop. A charge to which the Kuwatis have repeatedly said is true.
Forgive me in the lateness of my reply, but it’s been a busy weekend.
BUT oh, I think I KNOW why not before:
Powell admits that we wanted Iraq to win against Iran back in the mid 80’s, giving them advisors,
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/international/middleeast/18CHEM.html?ex=1030420800&en=c4fdffed19423826&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
… but didn’t admit any knowledge of their chemical weapons programs; even though we sold it to them,
http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/r_1_2.html#exports
…and monitored them,
http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm
…or that we sold them a lot of other useful wartime things,
http://www.cjr.org/year/93/2/iraqgate.asp
…including money for non-US weapons, the same ones that were used for the invasion of Kuwait,
http://www.webcom.com/%7Elpease/collections/hidden/teicher.htm
…and we didn’t put up sanctions against selling them chemicals after they gassed Kurds in ‘88,
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm
…and we even let him keep the US gunships we sold him after his invasion.
In fact, there’s even some word that the gassing of the Kurdish town didn’t even match Saddam’s known stockpile,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/08_gassing.html
…even though the only things UN inspectors ever found were the things we sold him.
So yeah, there’s plenty of viable alternative, that’s for sure, but we (as America, excluding you Australians) certainly don’t have a history of it. Ever.
Amazing how much can be generated by an original flawed premise.
Nowhere (outside your webpage) have I come across the suggestion that this, or any other, war could be based on “all sweetness and light”. You shouldn’t joke about such serious issues.
As Winnie (the polly) once said: —
“Never in the field of human endeavour, have so many straw men been slain by so many true believers” [[Sorry, I can’t give the original reference.]]