Will the USA be safer?

[antlers]

Risk/reward ratio is the only rational way to lead a country. The Soviet Union was a threat to the U.S. (and a sponsor of terrorism), but we refrained from invading them. Why? It just wouldn't have been worth it. The risk outweighed the reward. There will be some reward to getting rid of Saddam, but not enough to outweigh the risk.

Iraq doesn't have a viable nuclear weapons program anymore. They do have chemical and biological weapons, but destroying the Iraqi regime won't keep those out of the hands of terrorists. If anything, it will remove the current tight controls that are on such weapons.

Terrorists do not need state sponsors to acquire chemical and biological weapons; they are just too easy to make. Look what Aum Shinrikyo did in Japan.

As yet. terrorists do need state sponsors to create nuclear weapons. The two countries that are the greatest threat to giving terrorists nuclear weapons are North Korea (proven friend to terrorists) and Pakistan, which is just a heartbeat away from having a radical Islamic government. After that probably comes theft from the former Soviet Union. Iraq is way down the list.

I think the foreign policy the Bush administration is pursuing is making it more likely that a terrorist nuclear weapon will someday explode in an American city, and not less--if only because we will need the cooperation of the rest of the world to prevent that from happening, and the Bush administration seems to be doing its utmost to alienate the rest of the world.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

We're getting closer kyle, but you're still not answering any meaningful questions.

and as far as i am consired there are only 2 good options:

1) We convince Sadam to change. We convince him that he is causing injustice, and the he needs to change.
2) WE change. We are convinced that Sadam is not a regime of injustice.

So, where do YOU stand right now. Should Sadam change? Or should We change?

I presume your answer is again simply "resolve the injustices with respect to the equality of man?".

well i would not call it simple, but yes that is the root of my answer.

Um....my calling it simple was a rhetorical way to try and get to explain HOW you resolve those injustices!

OBVIOUSLY it's not simple. You continue to doge any question of substance.

HOW do we resolve situations where two parties each believe they are right, and are steadfast in their convictions?

HOW do you resolve injustices? What magic wand do you pass over people? And how long do you wave it wating for such resolution while people are being oppressed, or the risks of catastopic attack grow every day?

sometimes you have to do deeper into the good within yourself.

Sometimes, you need stop looking so deep and answer a practical, direct question for once.

 

[Vince]

Iraq doesn't have a viable nuclear weapons program anymore.

Bullshit, you shall see.

- In '90 the IAEA said Iraq was 6-9 years away from a fieldable nuclear device. They were under a year.
- The IAEA couldn't find Iran's nuclear program, the US told them they were nearing the citical poingt in fissible material production, the IAEA said no. The US was right.
- The IAEA couldn't find North Koreas HEU fissible program, the US found it.

Shall I continue?

They do have chemical and biological weapons, but destroying the Iraqi regime won't keep those out of the hands of terrorists. If anything, it will remove the current tight controls that are on such weapons.

What? Are you insane? After the US wins militarially, the US, UK, and many of the Eastern Bloc countries have supplied troops that will disinfect and clear the caches from the country. We won't leave any WMD in a free Iraq. The controlls will be 100%, iron-fisted as the US and UK will have them.

Terrorists do not need state sponsors to acquire chemical and biological weapons; they are just too easy to make. Look what Aum Shinrikyo did in Japan.

And even with their billions of dollars (thanks to telecom company) thewy could barely produce the weak Sarin they used. They couldn't produce Biological weapons, they tried and gave up. They couldn't even weaponize the Sarin correctly - ands thats easy on the WMD scale.

It takes a country, a fixed state, to produce these weapons. Congradulations, your ignorance on this topic is complete.

As yet. terrorists do need state sponsors to create nuclear weapons. The two countries that are the greatest threat to giving terrorists nuclear weapons are North Korea (proven friend to terrorists) and Pakistan, which is just a heartbeat away from having a radical Islamic government. After that probably comes theft from the former Soviet Union. Iraq is way down the list.

Pakistan will not yeild a Nuclear device to tewrrorists, where you heard this alludes me. The North won't give up their 2 to terrorists, nor will they accept the consequences. Iraq is fanatical, and as Dr. Hamza who defected in the mid 90s said - that if Iraq ever felt threatened by Israel or Iran, his program to produce HEU would go strait to a fieldable weapon and then use it on Israel - no matter the costs.

Iraq has the balls to do it, the rest don't. (Perhaps Iran, but we'll deal with them)

 

[RussSchultz]

We won't leave any WMD in a free Iraq. The controlls will be 100%, iron-fisted as the US and UK will have them.

That doesn't sound very free to me.

I'd prefer to prove no WMD in a free Iraq because they have a transparant society, not because we're their jail keepers.

 

[Vince]

That doesn't sound very free to me.

I'd prefer to prove no WMD in a free Iraq because they have a transparant society, not because we're their jail keepers.

I think you've misinterpreted what I was saying. The Willing will destroy or remove all WMD from the current regime while we have temporary control of the country - which shouldn't be very long as there's already a earlyconstitution agreed to by the big-three in Iraq.

Where you get 'Jail-keepers' is not appearent to me.

 

[RussSchultz]

The controlls will be 100%, iron-fisted as the US and UK will have them.

You said it, not me.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

As I read it, he means "100% control and Iron Fisted" with respect to control of the existing WMD, not the people!

 

[antlers]

Iraq doesn't have a viable nuclear weapons program anymore.

Bullshit, you shall see.

- In '90 the IAEA said Iraq was 6-9 years away from a fieldable nuclear device. They were under a year.
- The IAEA couldn't find Iran's nuclear program, the US told them they were nearing the citical poingt in fissible material production, the IAEA said no. The US was right.
- The IAEA couldn't find North Koreas HEU fissible program, the US found it.

I'm not taking IAEA's word for it. I'm relying on the U.S. not being able to find any convincing evidence of it.

They do have chemical and biological weapons, but destroying the Iraqi regime won't keep those out of the hands of terrorists. If anything, it will remove the current tight controls that are on such weapons.

What? Are you insane? After the US wins militarially, the US, UK, and many of the Eastern Bloc countries have supplied troops that will disinfect and clear the caches from the country. We won't leave any WMD in a free Iraq. The controlls will be 100%, iron-fisted as the US and UK will have them.

And there will be no interval between the time Hussein's regime's authority evaporates and the time the weapons fall under the control of Coalition forces?

Terrorists do not need state sponsors to acquire chemical and biological weapons; they are just too easy to make. Look what Aum Shinrikyo did in Japan.

And even with their billions of dollars (thanks to telecom company) thewy could barely produce the weak Sarin they used. They couldn't produce Biological weapons, they tried and gave up. They couldn't even weaponize the Sarin correctly - ands thats easy on the WMD scale.

It took a tiny fraction of Aum's resources to produce vast stockpiles of chemical weapons.

As yet, terrorists do need state sponsors to create nuclear weapons. The two countries that are the greatest threat to giving terrorists nuclear weapons are North Korea (proven friend to terrorists) and Pakistan, which is just a heartbeat away from having a radical Islamic government. After that probably comes theft from the former Soviet Union. Iraq is way down the list.

Pakistan will not yeild a Nuclear device to tewrrorists, where you heard this alludes me. The North won't give up their 2 to terrorists, nor will they accept the consequences. Iraq is fanatical, and as Dr. Hamza who defected in the mid 90s said - that if Iraq ever felt threatened by Israel or Iran, his program to produce HEU would go strait to a fieldable weapon and then use it on Israel - no matter the costs.

Iraq has the balls to do it, the rest don't. (Perhaps Iran, but we'll deal with them)

Pakistan worked closely with the Taliban and Al Qaeda before the coup that put Musharraf in power. Pakistan has powerful religious parties, and there are still many in the army and security forces that are sympathetic to Al Qaeda. It's government is unstable, and while it has yet to have an overtly radical Islamic government, it's certainly a possibility.

You claim that Iraq is fanatical, and yet Hussein was quite pragmatic in his decision not to use WMD in the first Gulf War as long as their was a chance that his regime would survive.

 

[RussSchultz]

I took his statement as forward looking into how we'd prevent the new Iraq from developing the weapons.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I took his statement as forward looking into how we'd prevent the new Iraq from developing the weapons.

What can I say...I interpreted it correctly and you didn't. Nyah! Nyah!

 

[kyleb]

i am sorry i did mean to be more clear on that first part but mistakenly left a comment out, not everything has a simple answer and it is not one or the other in this case, it is most definitely both. while it may not be simple, such things have been shown to work in practice, and that is why i support them practical solutions.

HOW do we resolve situations where two parties each believe they are right, and are steadfast in their convictions?

so in other words; how can we make everyone agree with each other on everything? that is not a practical question by any means but i suppose that it is theoretically possible that one might be able to dominate everyone into submission, but i do not consider it something worth trying. sometimes i find i just have to agree to disagree with people, but i can live with that and i do not see why they should not live either.

 

[Vince]

What can I say...I interpreted it correctly and you didn't. Nyah! Nyah!

LMAO....

 

[kyleb]

As I read it, he means "100% control and Iron Fisted" with respect to control of the existing WMD, not the people!

but such claims fail to account for the imperfect nature of humanity. a agree that this war would put much of any such weapons in our control, but i belive that how much is there and how much we will miss anyway is what i question. the first is very debatable and the second is a matter of pure speculation.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

so in other words; how can we make everyone agree with each other on everything? That is not a practical question by any means...

The fact that we agree that is not a practical question is my point.

That is why I question the approach of "just let dimplomacy / non-violent means work" (after it has been tried for YEARS without resolution) as the only just way to continue.

Sometimes, it is not practical that everyone can agree to disagree. When the "disagreements" involve human rights, national security, etc.

sometimes i find i just have to agree to disagree with people, but i can live with that and i do not see why they should not live either.

Sometimes, you have to see that practically, differences of opinion are not satisfactorally solvable by "well, we can just agree to disagree if we don't reach concensus", and we should just leave it at that."

Sadam can feel that his people are not being oppressed, that he is not dangeroups, and that his WMD do not exist.

Everyone else might feel otherwise.

We can work for say, 12 years, to try and convince each other to see it "our way." It hasn't worked. So, shall we just "agree to disagree" and leave it at that? Is that practical?

 

[Heathen]

And there will be no interval between the time Hussein's regime's authority evaporates and the time the weapons fall under the control of Coalition forces?

So how long do you think it will take to wrap up these facilities in Iraq with the amount of Troops in the region? 3,000+ Special Forces, 300,000+ Grounds troops, 300+Tanks, 1,500 ish aricraft, Satellites, UAVs etc etc.

Yes they could get out, but I doubt we'll see weeks of uncontrolled chaos unless Saddam really fights to the death.

 

[Vince]

I'm not taking IAEA's word for it. I'm relying on the U.S. not being able to find any convincing evidence of it.

Go ask any Senator on the 'hill whose on the Armed services or Intelligence comittees, we have proof. We can't release said information because these sites needs to be secured (eg. Special Ops) or destroyed within the first hours of a conflict.

As we've stated countless times here, releasing the intelligence we have so people like you can say, "OMG, I was wrong... who would have thought" has a horrible Risk/reward ratio as the rest of the caches will be moved and/or used. They need to go quickly.

And there will be no interval between the time Hussein's regime's authority evaporates and the time the weapons fall under the control of Coalition forces?

Even if there is a noticable lapse of time: the Airs are secured, the ground is going to be covered in coalition forces. We'll have RT IMINT and SIGINT of Iraq, it's very very unlikely much will escape.

It took a tiny fraction of Aum's resources to produce vast stockpiles of chemical weapons.

You're talking out of ignorance and are proving my point. I urge you to stop.

Aum spent countless hundreds of millions of dollars and could only produce Sarin in a relatively weak, non-militarized form. He attempted Biological weapons production, and failed.. 9 times according to the NYTimes(1998).

How you can even compare these as you do confuses me. Aum killed 7 people after spending hundreds of millions of dollars making GB which wasn't weaponized.

It takes fixed R&D, it takes money, it takes the infastructure and concurrent programs to produce militarized chemical or biological weapons. Only fixed states have this - as history has shown.

worked closely with the Taliban and Al Qaeda before the coup that put Musharraf in power. Pakistan has powerful religious parties, and there are still many in the army and security forces that are sympathetic to Al Qaeda. It's government is unstable, and while it has yet to have an overtly radical Islamic government, it's certainly a possibility.

No it's not. There have been significant studies and inquires by the US intelligency services (eg. DIA, CIA) to see the relative secutiry of the Pakistani and Indian nuclear stockpiles and their basically secure, very secure as there the corner piece of the governments defensive arsenal.

You claim that Iraq is fanatical, and yet Hussein was quite pragmatic in his decision not to use WMD in the first Gulf War as long as their was a chance that his regime would survive.

Perhaps the threat by George H.W. Bush that any chemical attack would be met with a total thermonuclear stike upon the country persuided them considering their good friends the French and Russians caved in to the Coalition in their opposition of Iraq. They were persuiding them not to.

Unfortunatly, at this time - the French are doing the opposite.

And Iraq is fanatical - look at their history of internal absuses committed to women, children and men. Aswell as their external uses of virtual states to comit acts of terror. This has been gone over time and time again in more thread here than I can even remember

 

[kyleb]

That is why I question the approach of "just let dimplomacy / non-violent means work" (after it has been tried for YEARS without resolution) as the only just way to continue.

but it has worked, not as well a we set out to have it work; but to say it has not worked is overlooking a lot of good.

Sometimes, it is not practical that everyone can agree to disagree. When the "disagreements" involve human rights, national security, etc.

no kidding, but we can still agree not to initiate violent action; i think that would be a good start.

Sadam can feel that his people are not being oppressed.

well i imagine Sadaam could go on for hours about how his people are being oppressed, i image he will leave out a lot of the details that involve him; but none the less i am sure there is much truth to what he would say. i was really looking forward to the seeing the debate he called with Bush, and very disappointed that the challenge was disregarded.

that he is not dangeroups.

i am sure he would tell you that he is a dangerous man if provoked, that is how most dangerous men see themselves.[/quote]

and that his WMD do not exist.

which, despite overwhelming speculation, it is only been shown to be that.

Everyone else might feel otherwise.

and they might feel that their feelings give them the right to kill, i do not agree.

We can work for say, 12 years, to try and convince each other to see it "our way." It hasn't worked.

but again it has worked to an extent, it has failed to an extent as well. focus on the bad and all you will see is bad, you can do nothing good with that.

So, shall we just "agree to disagree" and leave it at that? Is that practical?

rather agree to agree, on the meaning of "sever consciences" which was left so ambiguous in our proposal with all the parties that entered into the agreement on good faith and are questioning that faith now.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

but it has worked, not as well a we set out to have it work; but to say it has not worked is overlooking a lot of good.

I certainly disagree. It hasn't worked. Worked means that Iraq is disarmed, and that we can trust Saddam is not trying to deceive us. The fact that the inspectors continue to turn uip things that "aren't declared" means that Sadam is trying to put the burden of proof on the UN to "find weapons". As long as Sadam can keep the inspectors from finding things....that's OK? That is completely ass backwards.

no kidding, but we can still agree not to initiate violent action; i think that would be a good start.

*Scratches head*. "Alternative solution to not forcing him out, is to agree to not force him out."

which, despite overwhelming speculation, it is only been shown to be that.

Wrong. The WMD exists according to Iraq's own declarations. They have not been able (or more accurately, not been FORTHCOMING) to tell us where they are, or what happened to them.

and they might feel that their feelings give them the right to kill, i do not agree.

And they might feel that for the safety of their own and other citizens, Iraq must be forcibly disarmed, and I do agree.

but again it has worked to an extent, it has failed to an extent as well. focus on the bad and all you will see is bad, you can do nothing good with that.

We are no closer than we were 12 years ago in terms of Saddam being forthcoming with his weapons programs, and us having any confidence surrounding him.

I prefer to judge if something has worked by looking at results.

rather agree to agree, on the meaning of "sever consciences" which was left so ambiguous in our proposal with all the parties that entered into the agreement on good faith and are questioning that faith now.

Great. I ask YET AGAIN....what is YOUR SOLUTION. What would YOU PERSCRIBE AS SEVERE CONSEQUENCES.

 

[kyleb]

Worked means that Iraq is disarmed, and that we can trust Saddam is not trying to deceive us.

but is the idealsation of the consept, what i am conserned with is the realisation.

*Scratches head*. "Alternative solution to not forcing him out, is to agree to not force him out."

forceing him out is not on the ageneda for many of us.

Wrong. The WMD exists according to Iraq's own declarations. They have not been able (or more accurately, not been FORTHCOMING) to tell us where they are, or what happened to them.

so they had them, they are unaccounted for now; i agree. that does not mean they have them now though and while i belive that it is quite possable, it is not fact.

And they might feel that for the safety of their own and other citizens, Iraq must be forcibly disarmed, and I do agree.

understood, but i do not feel the same.

We are no closer than we were 12 years ago in terms of Saddam being forthcoming with his weapons programs, and us having any confidence surrounding him.

but i don't belive we can blame that all on him.

I prefer to judge if something has worked by looking at results.

i have noticed, and i know that war is a way to see something happen right now; but i wish you would look harder for less destructive solutions even though they will take time.

Great. I ask YET AGAIN....what is YOUR SOLUTION. What would YOU PERSCRIBE AS SEVERE CONSEQUENCES.

the un proposal was a good start in my opinion, the accelerated one even better. that along with contented inspections both frequent and random, as well as even more invasive surveillance would do a lot to fight the good fight. i bet France and Russia would have agree, as well as many of the other people who are discontented with the current situation. i imagine you will declare that it is not a valid option but i still insist that it is the best one i have seen.

 

[archie4oz]

You're talking out of ignorance and are proving my point. I urge you to stop.

Funny you should say this when...

Aum spent countless hundreds of millions of dollars and could only produce Sarin in a relatively weak, non-militarized form. He attempted Biological weapons production, and failed.. 9 times according to the NYTimes(1998).

Aum isn't even a 'he' it's a 'they', and it's not even Aum anymore it's Aleph...

I believe 'he' would be in reference to Shoko Asahara. Also the quality of the Aum's Sarin wasn't in question (it was quite capable as far as Sarin goes), rather their dispersion methods that reduced it's effectiveness. Also they did succeed in producing strains of anthrax and various botulin toxins, however they weren't virulent enough (their anthrax being a vaccine strain) to kill the host before effective treatment could occur (which is a tricky balance with regards to biological agents since if it's too virulent it kills the host before it can spread).

How you can even compare these as you do confuses me. Aum killed 7 people after spending hundreds of millions of dollars making GB which wasn't weaponized.

Actually the Aum killed 7 people in their first major attack (which wasn't the Tokyo subway attack which killed 12 and injured around 5000). Their latter attacks were largely deemed experiments in dispersion tactics (in the case of the subways, they simply dropped packages on the trains and punched holes in them so the Sarin in liquid form could leak out and vapourize). In total the National Police found the Aum to have produced enough Sarin to kill roughly 4.8 million people with proper dispersion. That of course doesn't include the VX, phosgene, and hydrogen cyanide found after raiding their chemical facilities...