tex Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1045511135700&p=1012571727088 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Pay VERY close attention to this type of thing in the coming days. Iraq's last hope is to suddenly reveal weapons that are banned, saying they had no idea, but, gosh, look what they found. If they can produce say 25 or 30 of the thousands they have, the left will be insufferable with comments of, "See, they've proven they have nothing and have turned over what they have." This will take a lot of wind out of the sails unfurled here. If Saddam can distract the his allies on the left in this country by pretending to give up weapons it would potentially be enough to end the immediate threat against him. Now, the real measure of Bush will come in how he reacts. If he backs down, he'll be able to claim victory in this, agreeing with the left that Saddam is giving up his weapons, which was the goal, and the military pressure made it possible. However, this will reveal a chink in his character of moral leadership. It will, perhaps, show he was thinking about the attack for other reasons. Perhaps a permanent military base in the area. If he comes out though and says, "Nothing he's doing now matters. Cutting off one of his 10 fingers and giving it to me doesn't mean he doesn't still have the other nine. We are IN DANGER here people. The weapons he has can hurt this nation. And we know what he has. We're going in to get it." This will be decried as bullying and unilateral. It will be screamed at as uncaring or being unwilling to listen to another side. People will snort, "See, I told you he just wanted to go in for the oil.", Or, "I knew he was going in no matter what." But, as much as this would politically hurt him, it would show a moral center he has shown in other areas of his leadership. It would show that he feels the threat is genuine. That he needs to protect the citizens of this country. And he knows more than anyone about what Saddam has and can access and knows when he gives up 10 weapons he's not really doing anything to diminish the threat. How Bush responds will be very telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Art...how about how the left responds? The same left that has all but accused the leadership of lieing........what will we learn about them? will they acknowledge 12 years of duplicitously and lawlessness on the part of Iraq? Or will they continue this mass self-delusion they seem bound to? How will they address yet further evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 I agree Art, but I personally have no doubt what Bush's response will be. He is no dummy, despite what his critics would like to believe. If there are major 'concessions' or 'revelations in the next 2 weeks, President Bush will point out that these are weapons Iraq denied possessing all along, and that this only demonstrates the absolute need to disarm Hussein by force. I can foresee no circumstance under which Bush backs down, short of a coup and subsequent declaration and turnover of chemical and biologic weapons stores. I think an equally likely scenario is a surprise Iraqi chem/bio weapons attack on our troops and Israel, and possibly sooner than we think. I think Hussein knows nothings going to stop us now and he won't go down without trying to do something dramatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Al, The left will hold hands and sing songs if Saddam releases five weapons he said he doesn't have. They'll parade over the "end of the threat." They will organize that day as "World Peace Day." They'll call Saddam's actions those of a leader reaching out to the world asking for forgiveness. They won't ever recognize that the weapons he'll give up are precisely those we've been talking about. They won't ever realize he's got more. To them, it'll be over. And, politically, all the souls who came over to the President after Powell spoke will go back and say, "We don't need war. He's giving up his weapons." It'll be popular then for the President to back down and "accept his victory." It'd be understandable. But, I suspect Bush may know that the threat isn't over and if the threat is real he can't stop short of an open massive change in the situation. I think Bush goes anyway. It's just going to be much more difficult on the home front. Hell, now the majority of the nation supports him. If this plays out as it could, you could see the majority against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 The attempt of those on the right to gain political advantage by attempting to lump the left with Saddam is shamefull! Come on folks we are all Americans. We are all on the same team. After all it was Dick Chaney's former company that did direct business with Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 As opposed to those on the left who claim the right did business with Saddam and supported him in the 80s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 look....I can't account for the fact that many in Hollywood and elsewhere have a fetish for the taste of Iraqi boots........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Useful idiots comes to mind Jack. It's a book out now and a phrase coined during the cold war to describe the unintentional assistance by the left to the cause of the enemy. Remember, the left screamed for years that we shouldn't escalate the arms war. But, as Reagan knew and has since been born out, by using American economic might to improve the military he bankrupted the Soviet Union which couldn't keep up. But, the screams of the left did help the Soviet Union. Just as the appeasment of the vocal left today is useful to Saddam's cause. Many American companies did business with Iraq and the Middle East. Our nation chose Iraq as the lesser evil and therefore friend in a pick'em contest with Iran. This doesn't alter anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by JackC The attempt of those on the right to gain political advantage by attempting to lump the left with Saddam is shamefull! You don't need our help. The protesters and Hollywood idiots like Sean Penn - remember his trip to Baghdad? - are doing just fine on your behalf. :shootinth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by Art Pay VERY close attention to this type of thing in the coming days. Iraq's last hope is to suddenly reveal weapons that are banned, saying they had no idea, but, gosh, look what they found. If they can produce say 25 or 30 of the thousands they have, the left will be insufferable with comments of, "See, they've proven they have nothing and have turned over what they have." This will take a lot of wind out of the sails unfurled here. If Saddam can distract the his allies on the left in this country by pretending to give up weapons it would potentially be enough to end the immediate threat against him. I have no doubt that this will be attempted - actually it has been incrementally as I've been pointing out in this other thread - but I disagree with you regarding it's efficacy at this late date. If this had happened from the get-go with the current inspections back in November and December, it might have been effective. But the Iraqi's blundered by taking too hard of a line when they declared that they had no - zero - weapons in their declaration. If they'd declared what we knew existed as of 1998 (and you know they've produced far more than that since then) we'd have been screwed diplomatically. Now, as a practical matter, we're committed to and going to war. Only a monumentally startling revelation to the inspectors - e.g. disclosure of an entire stockpile of weapons that have been produced recently (since UNSCOM inspections ended in 1998) and were not previously known about might cause a delay. Producing 30 warheads or something - a mere drop in the bucket - would be just more of the same gamesmanship that the Administration is already tired of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 It was Lenin who who used the term "useful idiots" to describe the liberal intellectuals, writers, politicians and socialist activists in the West "Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, destroy their ruggedness. Get control of all means of publicity and thereby: Get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. Destroy the peoples faith in their natural leaders by holding up the latter to ridicule, contempt and obloquy. Always preach true democracy but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. Encourage government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear with rising prices, inflation and general discontent. Foment unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a soft and lenient attitude on the part of government towards such disorders. By specious argument cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues: honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population defenseless." -Vladimir Ilich Lenin. scary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoDrill Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 The former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia was on NPR last night. He feels there is a strong possibility that Hussein will be assasinated by his inner circle, either shortly before or shortly after a US invasion, rather than risk their country and government being destroyed. Such an action would be consistent with Powell's stated aim to leave the Iraqi beauracracy/infrastructure intact, yet change the regime. The ambassador did not feel that exile was an option for Hussein and his sons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 thanks RD.......were there any questions about his son and immediate circle (their fates?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by Art Useful idiots comes to mind Jack. It's a book out now and a phrase coined during the cold war to describe the unintentional assistance by the left to the cause of the enemy. Remember, the left screamed for years that we shouldn't escalate the arms war. But, as Reagan knew and has since been born out, by using American economic might to improve the military he bankrupted the Soviet Union which couldn't keep up. But, the screams of the left did help the Soviet Union. Just as the appeasment of the vocal left today is useful to Saddam's cause. Many American companies did business with Iraq and the Middle East. Our nation chose Iraq as the lesser evil and therefore friend in a pick'em contest with Iran. This doesn't alter anything. I feel crazy today so let me be the first to question this statement. Let me throw out some facts and opinions related to the cold war. 1. You don't know what would have happened had we frozen Nukes during the cold war. One of the greatest problems the world has now is what will happen to all of those warheads sitting in the former Soviet republics. Maybe some end up with OBL. This could be trouble. If the warheads were never built we wouldn't have to worry about them. 2. It wasn't just the arms race that did in the Soviet Union. It was technology which made the world smaller. It made it impossible for the Soviet govenment to hide things from their own citizens. It was our culture that pushed things over the top in my opinion. As for that lesser of two evils excuse for American business with Iraq I find it weak. Our current VP went to Bagdad on business after Sadam gased his own people and now we use that as part of the reason to invade? I know its a popular myth that it was Ronald Reagan who ended the cold war but I think that is the too simplistic. The downfall of the Soviet Union was caused by a lot of factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Lots of reasons that came about from Reagans policies. We had diplomats in Moscow after WWII as well Jack. Sometimes we need to do business with bad people to get rid of worse people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoDrill Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 thanks RD.......were there any questions about his son and immediate circle (their fates?) No, it was just an announcer asking basic questions, w/ the amb. elaborating. I caught the last few minutes. The gist of what he said was: 1) He didn't feel that occupying Iraq would realistically allow us to shun/abandon the Saudis, as some administration planners seem to think. Iraq's domestic and oil infrastructure are in such shambles that utilizing its vast reserves would be a challenge lasting many years. 2) Assasination is a real possibility. There evidently have been several attempts already in the past 10 years, though the attemptors were lower in the command food chain, not Hussein's inner circle. 3) Asylum wouldn't fly, as Hussein and his sons are so despised -- any asylum would be short-lived. That's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Jack, It's true I have no idea, as you have no idea, what might have happened had we embraced the left's call for a freeze. That's absolutely fair. What is equally true and fair is we DO know what happened by NOT adopting a freeze, right? We KNOW the Soviets went bankrupt and couldn't keep up and we won the Cold War when they collapsed under the bloat they couldn't hold up. So, in a battle of what we know and what we don't know, I'm going to win because WE KNOW what we did worked and we have no idea if another idea would have. You are also right that a threat over our heads today is the nukes remaining in former Soviet Republics. Fortunately this is a far lesser threat than the threat we lived under for 40 years which was the actual Soviet Union . If the warheads had never been built, you're right, we'd not have had to worry about them. But, since we know the Soviet Union doesn't exist any longer because they were built and they couldn't afford it any longer, the fact is if those warheads weren't built, the Soviet Union would likely still be around. So, again, a greater threat is gone and a lesser threat exists. Bully to us . I'll try to ignore your thoughts that technology shrunk the world as the reason the Soviet Union failed. Technology has actually shrunk the world SINCE it failed and since it failed China and North Korea are still rocking and rolling, so, it's a horribly poor stance you're taking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Small steps...time for me to retreat. Art, I agree we didn't agree to the freeze but I don't know if that decision was a major factor in what happened next. That is still both of our opinions. We know there was no freeze, we know the Soviet system went down but we don't know they're related or if they were related how much. So do we draft a DT or a WR? I say DT, the fatter the better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 1) you seem to forget that there were agreements signed and regimes established to systematically destroy the huge inventory of mirv warheads. the worry now is partially the weapons, but more so control over spent fuels from energy plants. 2) the Soviet Union fell for many reasons...that is a truism. Techology wasn't the reason as you assert. In fact, the Soviets were early adopters of a lot of high tech industrial and military technologies. no....the following falls closer to the mark - as Art points out.....their economic system couldn't generate guns and butter at a pace sufficient to march lockstep with the US; they tried and it bankrupted the system - the distortions of a command driven/fiat economic system horribly distorts resource allocation; the inefficiencies were huge and unsurmountable over time: they couldn't compete internationally - closer to what Jack is arguiing......an economic system that doesn't reward risk taking....isn't conducive to the enterpreneurship that motivates technology growth and innovation in the first place - the culture Jack speaks of is a euphemism for a simpler concept FREEDOM - the Soviet Empire was eventually going to collapse if only for the shere weight of its heterogeneity; once the inevitability of rolling tanks became less pronounced, it was a matter of time before the desire for cultural (read national) identity and independence took hold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 The Soviet Union is gone and lets thank everyone who was involved in it. However that is the past and the left is real good at bringing up the past. I want to talk about now. Why is the left so oppossed to Iraq being free? Thats the question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 SHF....good question....the answer you'll get is that they aren't against freedom for Iraqis.... the next question then becomes how to achieve this....that's when the foot shuffling begins..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Actually, they'll ask why the right didnt want Iraqi freedoms in the 80's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Ohhh Good question Kilmer....I agree with your question again! Cat Scratch Fever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.