[patconnole]

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/20/sdi.02.html
This one's a short debate (reminded me of conversations here).



http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,880437,00.html
more oil stuff, short



http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/commentary/2003/0301warreasons.html
alread posted this one, but if you haven't read it, check it out. Pretty long, but worth it.

 

[patconnole]

At www.australiannews.net a few days ago, I saw a news story link, titled "U.S. planning to massacre Iraq". So I naturally clicked on the link, and it was about the U.S. plans to initiate the war with two days of continuous tomohawk/cruise missiles, using over 400 on Baghdad.

With my trusty skill to weed out "false" news reports, I disregarded the story as tabloid journalism, and my overall impression of the site that linked it was diminished......

Anyway, so I'm on this peace movement email list for my county, and usually all they send is a calendar of events for the week. But just today I got one that specifically referenced this story. Here's what it said:

You may have missed this since it has received practially zero coverage
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/25/1042911596206.html
In a nutshell, the US plans to launch 300-400 cruise missiles at Baghdad
for the first two days of war. This is more than were launched during
the entire first gulf war. This operation is called "Shock and Awe".
The monster who came up with it, Harlan Ullman, describes it as:
"rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima".
A pentagon offical (who apparently was on CBS News--I didn't see it)
said "The sheer size of this has never been... contemplated before.
There will not be a safe place in Baghdad".
So we're officially targeting civilians now and preparing to use
Hiroshima-level force against them. I assume that this violates
international law, and that targeting civilians on this scale
constitutes a war crime or a crime against humanity.
Do you think there's some potential here for public outrage and
revulsion? Can we convince those who don't oppose the war outright at
least to oppose the wholesale targeting of civilians?


This is becoming a less and less interesting post the more I write it. Sorry. Anyway, it's just funny they're taking this report seriously...... But maybe it's true!? I guess we'll have to wait a week or two and see who's right.

 

[patconnole]

On the same email, there was a list of cool protest signs at the DC march a week ago. As many of you have stated, our clever hippie signs won't convince you of anything..... But they are amusing. Without further ado:

These Colors Don't Run the World
One Nation Under Surveillance
How Did Our Oil Get Under Their Sand?
Go Solar, Not Ballistic
Who Would Jesus Bomb?
Don't Blame Me, I Voted With The Majority
Buck Fush!
Resistance Is Fertile
(pictures of sheep carrying flags) Stop Mad Sheep Disease Now
(UFW sign) Pick Fruit, Not Fights
(on a 5-year-old) More Candy Less War
(with pictures of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) Asses of Evil
It's The Oil, Stupid
Read Between The Pipelines
Smart Weapons, Dumb President
The Only Thing We Have To Fear Is Bush Himself
How Many Lives Per Gallon?
Anything War Can Do, Peace Can Do Better
Negotiation Not Annihilation
Another Patriot For Peace
Oh Say Can You Cease?
Star Spangled Bummer
Don't Arm A Son Of A Bush
Don't Do It, George - Dad Will Still Love You
Power To The Peaceful
The Last Time We Listened To A Bush, We Wandered In The Desert For
40 Years

 

[patconnole]

One last post for my official thread.


My g/f's dad got an official binder from the whitehouse that explains our foriegn policy. Can't remember what the title was, but I think they're required to make them available to anyone who wants one, annually. It had a few sections; our general policy towards terrorism, the case against Iraq that listed most of Saddam's crimes (the basis of Bush's speach initiating this Iraq thing a few months ago), homeland security, and some other stuff.

So I was reading through the list of Saddam's crimes..... and I actually started to be convinced this war was necessary. It was weird. For a few short moments, I separated myself from my liberal upbringing, my anti-bush bias..... and imagined myself completely without bias, reading this information for the first time, and I actually thought something like "Wow. I totally support this effort.... Bush is taking this head on. Well done. He's not shying away from a possible threat. Where did all those bio/chem weapons go that are unaccounted for? That's a big deal." Then I felt a short sense of pride in Bush and imagined support/voting for him.

Yeah, it sounds cheesy, but it happened.

But the feeling's gone, and here's my current question. How is invading and occupying a country going to actually solve the problem of unaccounted weapons? If this guy/country is posing a threat to us, whether immediate or long-term, how would war be anywhere near as effective as inspection? It may be over the long term, because any current and future production/storage will cease---- but if we fear that he's going to pass this crap off to individuals who can personally deliver it to a U.S. city or one of our allies (the only realistic threat).... How the eff is a war going to stop that?

When there is a drug-problem, like a mafia, or smuggling, or dealers in an area.... We don't solve that problem by bombing the neighborhood the drug-house is located in. You go to the house, stop production, and follow the leads that take you to specific dealers, runners, and the network: What inspectors do.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by patconnole
When there is a drug-problem, like a mafia, or smuggling, or dealers in an area.... We don't solve that problem by bombing the neighborhood the drug-house is located in. You go to the house, stop production, and follow the leads that take you to specific dealers, runners, and the network: What inspectors do.

Yeah but when you make a drug bust you dont get to seize the drugs, resell and consume them. And the dealers arent going to (potentially) overthrow the police in a massive offensive.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Yeah but when you make a drug bust you dont get to seize the drugs, resell and consume them. And the dealers arent going to (potentially) overthrow the police in a massive offensive.

Do you mean Iraq potentially overthrowing the US in a massive offensive? Or is the US the dealer? I'm confused.

 

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by patconnole
Do you mean Iraq potentially overthrowing the US in a massive offensive? Or is the US the dealer? I'm confused.

I thought that was obvious at the beginning of the thread.

 

[DRB]

You apparently forgot your Sun Tzu to recognize Shock and Awe. In short the idea is to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary in order to achieve the goals of the conflict or crisis. Clauswitz later honed this to "..destroy your enemy's will to resist." Look at any pictures of prisioners of way for example the Iraqi prisioners during the Gulf. What do you see?

It is one of the reasons that the US government does not make secret the build up of arms going to the Gulf. Letting CNN know which units, what weapons, and how many might seem strange to many but it is done for affect. Look here at what we are lining up for you, is this really what you want? The ability to convince your enemy he is going to lose before the fight ever starts is key. In some cases this is enough. For all we know this could be the ultimate strategy. Above all else, war is deception.

While the application of indescriminate and overwhelming force is certainly one way of achieving this goal of Shock and Awe, it is not the only one. Nor is it the most likely course that the US military would proscute any conflict with Iraq.

As for Ullman, my opinion is that he has done nothing but chew up Sun Tzu and Clauswitz and a little Keagan and spit it back out with little or no new insight. But he is not an official of the US government or military (he was a Naval officer). He is a private citizen employed by a variety of organizations, so it is doubtful that he will have much impact on US strategy. He shows in most of his books only the barest orginiality or insight. The writer of your "news" article does, however, go to great lengths to distort Ulman's points by taking practically everything out of context.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by DRB


It is one of the reasons that the US government does not make secret the build up of arms going to the Gulf. Letting CNN know which units, what weapons, and how many might seem strange to many but it is done for affect.

This is one hopeful reason to believe, or to support bush. Threaten Saddam to disarm, in a unified voice, and he will disarm.





I thought that was obvious at the beginning of the thread.
still confused here.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
When there is a drug-problem, like a mafia, or smuggling, or dealers in an area.... We don't solve that problem by bombing the neighborhood the drug-house is located in. You go to the house, stop production, and follow the leads that take you to specific dealers, runners, and the network: What inspectors do.

Yes you are right but bombing in your analogy isn't appropriate is it? You completely skip over the step between "go to the house" and "stop production". You know the part where the SWAT team enters the house using a no-knock warrant. They wear black, with helmets, face masks, body armor, carry kevlar riot shields and use laser sights on top of H&K MP5s. They use flash bang grenades to stun the occupants and make the entry safer. They breach the door(s) use necessary force to subdue everyone that is present, responding in kind to any deadly force and then saying "oh by the way we got this warrant to do this."

THEN the investigators come in and start the process of finding the next level.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by DRB
Yes you are right but bombing in your analogy isn't appropriate is it? You completely skip over the step between "go to the house" and "stop production". You know the part where the SWAT team enters the house using a no-knock warrant. They wear black, with helmets, face masks, body armor, carry kevlar riot shields and use laser sights on top of H&K MP5s. They use flash bang grenades to stun the occupants and make the entry safer. They breach the door(s) use necessary force to subdue everyone that is present, responding in kind to any deadly force and then saying "oh by the way we got this warrant to do this."

THEN the investigators come in and start the process of finding the next level.

I got ya. But! Let's see if I can approach this without sounding like I'm respecting Saddam. Iraq is country, right? A sovereign country, right? We hate its leader.... but this doesn't give some unilateral right to effect "regime change" (overthrow a government). So in this case, we don't have a warrant.... and the only way we can get a legitimate one is through the UN. This is why (IMO) there is such opposition in the security council and abroad to a unilateral US action. You can watch some of the security council debates at www.un.org . Mexico, for example, was clear to spell out its respect for Iraq as a soveriegn country. So, its not like Iraq is some drug-house that can be raided..... Its not a house in our neighborhood.

Right now, the "cops" in this example have been given a warrant to go into Iraq and inspect any site they want. (they can go to the drug-house and stop production, investigate leads, producers, runners, dealers, etc)..... But there is no warrant for the SWAT team (US military).

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
So, its not like Iraq is some drug-house that can be raided..... Its not a house in our neighborhood.

So then why use the analogy in the first place? The rest is a half hearted attempt to save it. I could spend more time shooting holes in the analogy but.... just drop it. Your points would be much clearer without it.

But you do get bonus points for the Evil.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by DRB
So then why use the analogy in the first place? The rest is a half hearted attempt to save it. I could spend more time shooting holes in the analogy but.... just drop it. Your points would be much clearer without it.

But you do get bonus points for the Evil.

Half hearted?


I guess my whole point.......was an analysis of our problem solving methods. Look at the problem, and ways to solve. For help, look at somewhat similar situations and approaches to dealing with them.... This is how our whole court system works (setting precedents..... eh)

I'll drop it, but lemme get this out. Iraq is similar to a drug house in that it's a place in posession of things we don't want it to posess, and "threatens" to use them in ways we don't want (drugs and weapons both work for the analogy). bla bla bla....

So if we want to solve the problem of them possessing something bad(drughouse and iraq), we use means legitimized by the affected communities.... And in Iraq's case, the UN is that community. I think the analogy works great. You don't send a SWAT team to a drughouse without a warrant, because it goes against established procedures in the community-- the whole point of which is to prevent the gov. from becoming a totalitarian, soviet style system.

This same idea works for the Iraq situation, except the whole point of the established procedures is to prevent a gov. from becoming an empire/dominearing state (the lone superpower, for example). And I think a faliure to abide by these procedures reflects a double standard, our respect for the rule of law is usually present at home, but abroad, only when it serves our interests.


And the evil only improves on this great analogy.



j/k

 

[patconnole]

http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn20030128.ra&start=47:05.6

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
So if we want to solve the problem of them possessing something bad(drughouse and iraq), we use means legitimized by the affected communities.... And in Iraq's case, the UN is that community. I think the analogy works great. You don't send a SWAT team to a drughouse without a warrant, because it goes against established procedures in the community-- the whole point of which is to prevent the gov. from becoming a totalitarian, soviet style system.

This same idea works for the Iraq situation, except the whole point of the established procedures is to prevent a gov. from becoming an empire/dominearing state (the lone superpower, for example). And I think a faliure to abide by these procedures reflects a double standard, our respect for the rule of law is usually present at home, but abroad, only when it serves our interests.
And the evil only improves on this great analogy.
j/k

Bad analogy and cool Evil aside, I find your response unexpected.

Now I am not holding you to the interpretation I make but.... it seems to me that you are saying that with the proper "warrant" military action is acceptable? Though I am unsure as to exactly where or what would constitute a legitimate "warrant" (that's it I'm puttin' a bullet in the drug house analogy) for you.

Or more importantly when is enough enough?

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by DRB
it seems to me that you are saying that with the proper "warrant" military action is acceptable? Though I am unsure as to exactly where or what would constitute a legitimate "warrant" (that's it I'm puttin' a bullet in the drug house analogy) for you.

Or more importantly when is enough enough?

Yes, military action would be acceptable (to me) if the "community" affected by that action agreed to it-- or a majority. This community is represented by the UN... so a legitimate warrant could be issued by its security council. Currently, there is a legit warrant for inspections, and not one for military action. (trying to answer your first question)

I stress the importance of security council endorsement of military action because of the obvious long term goal of "not pissing off our neighbors". If a majority agreed to the war suggested by the US, the pissing off is less likely to occur.

Enough is enough, for me, when the countries within Iraq's missile range start feeling threatened by saddam, and ask for help.... or a number of countries besides the US and UK start to feel threatened by Saddam, not just follow along in our lead.

 

[Strakar]

Originally posted by patconnole
Enough is enough, for me, when the countries within Iraq's missile range start feeling threatened by saddam, and ask for help.... or a number of countries besides the US and UK start to feel threatened by Saddam, not just follow along in our lead.

Sorry, but the threat that a nuclear Iraq's poses to the world stretches way beyond it's missile range...

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by patconnole

Enough is enough, for me, when the countries within Iraq's missile range start feeling threatened by saddam, and ask for help.... or a number of countries besides the US and UK start to feel threatened by Saddam, not just follow along in our lead.

Do Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel count as "countries"....?

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by ohio
Do Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel count as "countries"....?

eh, iran is the exception here, but the other countries all feed off our collective teat, no? i think that these other countries need to come from areas not directly in our sphere of influence, or whatever that term is.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by ohio
Do Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel count as "countries"....?

Are the people of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait asking for an invasion of Iraq?

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by Strakar
Sorry, but the threat that a nuclear Iraq's poses to the world stretches way beyond it's missile range...

Yes, a suitcase nuke is a threat, but not from Iraq.... I'll see if I can find some evidence and post it later, but off the top of my head:

-Iraq currently doesn't have nukes (this is uncontested, I believe)
-Those aluminum tubes that bush has been referencing (supposedly for a centrifuge to enrich uranium or something) are not what he's claiming.... I think they're rockets or something, and nuke experts have stated that converting these into what bush describes them as would be quite difficult--- similar to saying Saddam is going to melt down his aluminum pop cans and make the centrifuge stuff.


got to go.

I think fluff's answer is the best to the "country" question.

 

[patconnole]

press continue and watch the flash movie

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml?

 

[Strakar]

Originally posted by patconnole
Yes, a suitcase nuke is a threat, but not from Iraq.... I'll see if I can find some evidence and post it later, but off the top of my head:

-Iraq currently doesn't have nukes (this is uncontested, I believe)
-Those aluminum tubes that bush has been referencing (supposedly for a centrifuge to enrich uranium or something) are not what he's claiming.... I think they're rockets or something, and nuke experts have stated that converting these into what bush describes them as would be quite difficult--- similar to saying Saddam is going to melt down his aluminum pop cans and make the centrifuge stuff.


got to go.

I think fluff's answer is the best to the "country" question.

I wasn't talking about a suitcase nuke. Or at least, not an Iraquian one.

The development of nuclear weapons on Iraq (will continue to be an objective as long as Saddam or someone with the same profile remains in power), will press the other middle-east countries into the pursue of this kind of technology. Not only to balance the Iraquian added military power, but also to compete for political influence.

Well, the dissemination of nuclear weapons in the region would make it dangerously possible for extremists to benefit of some form of nuclear capability (it could be a radioactive bomb, and not a conventional one). And as we've seen in the past, these guys are capable of the worst.

 

[patconnole]

from www.progressive.org "the emperor has spoken"

He inexplicably repeated the charge that Saddam "has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production," even though, just the day before, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Association, said those tubes "would not be suitable" for making nuclear weapons.

 

[patconnole]

http://www.workingforchange.com/action_center.cfm?itemid=14415

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by patconnole
from www.progressive.org "the emperor has spoken"

He inexplicably repeated the charge that Saddam "has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production," even though, just the day before, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Association, said those tubes "would not be suitable" for making nuclear weapons.

Well that article was useless.

If i want the twisting of words to take on someone else's meaning, I'll start arguing with Leatherface.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Well that article was useless.

If i want the twisting of words to take on someone else's meaning, I'll start arguing with Leatherface.

Could you talk about any specifics in the article? I agree with most of it...

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by patconnole
Could you talk about any specifics in the article? I agree with most of it...

The entire thing was speculation......whats to agree with?

And he misquoted the scientists, talked about relationships between Bin Laden and Hussein and didnt cite any sources of that info, brough in completely unrelated topics about the US helping Iraq in the 80s as if the situation were the same and completely ignored the fact that Hussein has completely disregarded every sanction ever put into effect on him.

It was crap. More propaganda.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

Maybe Saddam is buying high quality aluminum tubes for some other reason. Maybe he wants to make a line of bombproof hardcore freeride hardtails. Sideways and DW better watch out...there's a new deputy in BikeTown. Of course, each of his bikes will be designed on those 1000 PS2's he bought.

 

[patconnole]

From the UN's website, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7644.doc.htm

a paraphrase of MOHAMED ELBARADEI

"A particular issue of focus, he noted, had been the attempted procurement by Iraq of high strength aluminium tubes, and the question of whether those tubes, if acquired, could be used for the manufacture of nuclear centrifuges. Iraqi authorities had indicated that their unsuccessful attempts to procure the aluminium tubes related to a programme to reverse engineer conventional rockets. To verify that information, IAEA inspectors had inspected the relevant rocket production and storage sites, taken tube samples, interviewed relevant Iraqi personnel, and reviewed procurement contracts and related documents.

From the Agency’s analysis to date, it appeared that the aluminium tubes would be consistent with the purpose stated by Iraq and, unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges. However, he said the inspectors were still investigating that issue. It was clear, however, that the attempt to acquire such tubes was prohibited under Council resolution 687."



And, from today's white house press briefing:

Q Ari, the President mentioned something that was mentioned earlier, the aluminum tubes as part of the list of evidence that the U.S. thinks that Saddam Hussein has got weapons of mass destruction. But the IAEA and other world officials -- Mohammed ElBaradei, actually, specifically said that it's just not there, that is not what that it's intended to be used for in Iraq, that it's really just conventional. Isn't there a concern that when the President and the White House make statements like that it's going to undermine your overall argument of this Mt. Everest of evidence that you say exists?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. And I'll give you three reasons why, in the President's judgment. Number one, Mohammed ElBaradei and the IAEA said that the importations of these tubes is illegal and violates the policies that Iraq committed itself to, regardless of what the IAEA has so far judged them to be. They said Iraq's actions in importing them are, in and of themselves, a violation. That should be a cause for concern, number one, about whether Iraq is disarming.

Number two, on the tubes, the IAEA has said that their investigation remains open. They have not reached final conclusions about this. On that point, therefore, to point three, there are continuing discussions with the IAEA in which information is being shared about this information. The preponderance of evidence is that Iraq attempted to procure high-strength aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment. We stand by that statement.

Our technical analysis at the extremely tight manufacturing tolerances and high-strength materials indicates the tubes far exceed any specifications required for non-nuclear capabilities. Iraq attempted to procure the tubes covertly. The cost of the tubes is far greater than what one would pay for if the tubes were just to be used for artillery. Iraq has devoted substantial efforts to concealing its nuclear program in the past. It's not surprising that it would attempt to mislead the inspectors on this issue and the inspectors have left it open because they want to continue to hear from us and to work on this before final conclusions are reached. The President stands by every word he said.

Q Is this intelligence that's already been shared with him?

MR. FLEISCHER: It's an ongoing process.

Q Will Secretary Powell outline some of that? Because it's an interesting statement --

MR. FLEISCHER: I know you will be there on Wednesday next week, so you'll find out Wednesday.

 

[patconnole]

Our city council held a public forum/meeting on passing a city resolution against this war on Iraq, two days ago. Not sure what the specifics of the resolution are.. Anyway, the entire hall was filled (maybe 300-500 people), and they asked that people opposed to the resolution form a line on the left, and vice versa for those for it-- so they could alternate 3 minute speaches on each side. The line against the resolution was 8 people long, while the pro-line was so long it blended into the seated audience. The opposing line was pretty much all white male, a majority looking like middle class laborer-types..... The pro-line was a mix of hippies, older folk, students, etc.

It was dissapointing though... I was looking for a good debate and didn't find one. The anti-resolution side mainly stuck to the argument that "this is a waste of valuable city council time. We've got traffic problems, and other problems, and we've got elected representatives to deal with this. This isn't a city issue, and I'm frustrated we're even having this talk.....waste of valuable time.....etc...etc." Even though, at the beginning of the meeting, the council was clear to state, "This is not an official meeting of the council, this is only to gauge the city's opinion on bringing the proposed resolution to the council". It's not like they cancelled a "traffic problem" meeting to have this informal talk. Another guy said something like, "I'd just like to point out that this is a republican city/county... We've got a vocal minority, that "militant left"... I don't have anthing in common with these folks, and you'll all probably be glad to know I'm moving out of here soon..... stupid militant left......etc". And then there were a couple that said, "I'd also like to voice my support of the President...." One guy had a good argument, he doesn't want to pass this problem off to his kids, let's take care of it now.

The anti-war folks weren't that impressive either... A few arguments I agreed with, "we're becoming an arrogant america". A hippie got up there and talked about his plans to form group to "evolve" people into using more peaceful problem solving approaches. Each month, they'll have a different theme. January's is relationship month, February is conflict resolution, etc. The anti-resolution side were just rolling their eyes at this. As was I--about the only thing I had in common with them.

My g/f and I wanted to get in the anti-resolution side, just to give a good argument.... as the others were so dissapointing, on both sides (that sounds a bit conceited).


Overall, I think it was cool of the city to host the talk though. I understood the "this isn't a city issue" argument... but if the majority of city feels strongly about a federal/national issue, why shouldn't they voice their collective opinion? The resolution would be purely symbolic (they'd mail it to DC).

yada yada yada. I wanted to get up there and say, I'm all for ousting Saddam, but I don't like the way Bush is approaching it. (ohio's argument). Can we pass a resolution that calls bush stupid?


j/k on that last part.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
From the UN's website, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7644.doc.htm

a paraphrase of MOHAMED ELBARADEI

From the Agency’s analysis to date, it appeared that the aluminium tubes would be consistent with the purpose stated by Iraq and, unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges. However, he said the inspectors were still investigating that issue. It was clear, however, that the attempt to acquire such tubes was prohibited under Council resolution 687."

Let's see he said that the aquistion of these tubes was prohibited. I guess at that point it simply doesn't matter what they were going to be used for.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by DRB
Let's see he said that the aquistion of these tubes was prohibited. I guess at that point it simply doesn't matter what they were going to be used for.

To me, that makes the biggest difference in the world. If Iraq is buying artillary shells that have a range of (let's say...) 200 km.... why is that a threat to us? It's not. But if they're trying to develop an atom-bomb, then that is a problem.

 

[llkoolkeg]

...attention. Good old time grandstanding. The pols of every little liberal hamlet in the nation are probably clamoring for the opportunity to get interiewed on CSPAN. Just in case there is any difficulty encountered on the way, it's always so nice to be able to say "I told you so" and get on record as being "against war".

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
To me, that makes the biggest difference in the world. If Iraq is buying artillary shells that have a range of (let's say...) 200 km.... why is that a threat to us? It's not. But if they're trying to develop an atom-bomb, then that is a problem.

Second part first. Iraq's nuclear program does not really bother me. I don't believe he has the ability or the resources to really develop anything more than some really nasty dirty bombs. There are more scary places that already have bomb programs that are producing weapons. Pakistan and North Korea being the two primary ones. Plus the control that exists over nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union is pathetic.

His chemical weapons programs are what really scare me.

However, the tubes represent a violation of a UN resolution. Plain and simple. Which is just another in a long line of them.

The entire reason behind the hyper long range artillery programs was the delivery of weapons of mass destruction. And I do agree, if you discount the US forces in the Gulf region, that these shells would be of little consequence to the US. But they are a threat to the countries in the region. I think that view them as such. The delivery systems of WMD are just as important as the weapons themselves.