 |
||||||||
|
1/12/2003 02:26:00 AM | Justin Re: Guilty especially if not proven guilty? Yes, Brad, of course you're brainwashed. And as I've personally read the 12000 page Iraqi declaration, I feel that you should really just accept all my opinions as fact, like most people do. Oh well, guess you leave me no choice but to argue with you. "But you seem to imply that Mr. Hussein has no weapons. That's just silly. He was always guilty until proven innocent. I don't see how it can be otherwise." -Brad Fancy that, a government without weapons! I'm assuming you mean weapons of mass destruction. It's hard enough to import toothpicks into Iraq, let alone fissile material. 90% of all material for making weapons of mass destruction was eliminated from Iraq during the 90's, according to the weapons inspectors. Even their head, Richard Butler has said the weapons inspections were close to completely disarming Iraq when they were withdrawn under US pressure. Iraq wasn't exactly "compliant" throughout this period, but the US didn't quite play fair either, covertly using the UN weapons inspectors to plant surveillance devices throughout Iraq, sending intelligence back to the US, planning coups... This is one area where US media has rather disingenuously changed its story: http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html As you mention, there's a credibility problem with defector testimonies. All of them are set up for a cushy life in the US afterwards if they corroborate the US governmental story, so corruption is certainly not out of the question. I've done some hunting on the internet, and it seems the defector case is based primarily on the testimony of two Iraqi scientist defectors: Khadir Hamza , who defected in 1994, and thus has little to offer regarding recent events, and Adnan Ihsan Saeed who left more recently, and seems to have a pretty credible story. But can we base an entire war solely on the testimony of one man? Or even a few men? A war based on such evidence certainly would not gain much international support, because even our allies want to see weapons inspections continue. According to this article http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/011103A.blair.hold.htm, US/British invasion of Iraq without UN support would cause a major MP walkout on Tony Blair. As one moderate put it "Labour MPs don't trust George Bush and wonder why Tony is so close to him." It seems that the proper course is to use the evidence presented by these defectors to help UN weapons inspectors find more conclusive evidence. The big problem with the Bush Administration is their "principled" opposition to the very idea of proving anything. No wonder Tony Blair's getting so much flack on the home front for falling in line with Bush on the Iraq issue. It's possible a premature war with Iraq could lead to the fall of Tony Blair, and the election of a less US friendly government. Just to step back from the question a little bit, do you really think the US would be seriously endangered even in the worst case scenario, if Iraq acquired nukes? (I know I'm opening myself wide open for attack here, but just bare with me for a moment) Obviously they wouldn't use them overtly against us, and the possibility of them using them covertly through terrorists means seems far less likely than that of terrorist procuring "loose nukes" from somewhere like Russia. (which is not to say that I *want* to see Saddam the dictator get WMD) Yet the US is only spending $1 billion a year to buy up Russian loose nukes, while they're preparing to spend loads more on a potential war in Iraq. Do you have any suggestions why that might be? My gut tells me it's because they want to have a perpetual war to sell the American public in order to maintain high popularity. To me, the idea that their going to try to bowl over the entire "axis of evil" one by one is far more scary than the thought of Iraq procuring WMD. Bush's apparent vision of endless war would simply be spreading our empire too thin, encouraging terrorism, and militarizing our country to the point where the economy takes a backburner, all for an ill-defined gain in the war on terrorism. Lastly, just to answer your criticism directly, no where in my posting did I suggest that I thought Saddam was not interested in getting WMD, which he obviously is, along with North Korea, Brazil, and other nations who haven't declared it as openly. But I see weapons inspections, rather than war, as the best way to disarm Iraq. The US also needs to dangle the "carrot" of ending sanctions and normalizing relations, so Iraq has a real incentive to comply. We weren't giving them any incentive to comply in the 90's because our steadfast policy of regime change made them anxious to hold on to any weapons they could as a deterrent against US invasion. Wouldn't any leader in that situation seek WMD? -justin perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.