Originally posted by Toad
I think more "9/11's" are on the way whether we invade Iraq or not.
My original point exactly.
However, I DO believe that removing Saddam from power would be a benefit with respect to lessening the chances of anti-US terrorists getting some really effective chem or bio agents.
I would love to believe it were that easy, but I just can't. I reckon the terrorists can get hold of either from many sources, so I don't see it as much of a benefit really. Getting rid of Iraq's bio/chem weapons will IMO realistically only lessen the chances of Hussein himself using them. The catch 22 is that invading Iraq will most probably lead to Hussein using bio/chem weapons.
NSA has sat photos of the plane from US recon devices as well.
There's also a report that Charles Duelfer, the former vice chairman of Unscom, the U.N. weapons inspection team, who actually visited the Salman Pak camp several times saw the fuselage as well.
You can blow off the defectors if you like too. That's the easy way out for your side of the argument.
Save your fingers from RSI, my amphibian friend - I remain unswayed by more US government testimony. It goes without saying that the NSA would
never lie to serve the US government's interests, of course. And the vice chairman of UNSCOM (the weapons inspection team which IIRC was compromised by CIA espionage) is obviously above board and without any hidden agenda - just look at his resume:
Before joining the commission, he was
deputy assistant secretary of state for arms control and multilateral defense matters. From 1990 to 1992, Mr. Duelfer was in charge of defense trade matters as the
director of the Center for Defense Trade and deputy to the assistant secretary of state for politico-military affairs. In this capacity he had responsibility for arms transfers, munitions licensing, and conventional arms control. From January to March 1991 he was tasked with
directing the State Department's Task Force in support of Desert Storm. Mr. Duelfer first joined the
Politico-Military Bureau of the State Department in 1983 and was responsible for special regional activities (conflicts in Chad, Libya, and Grenada), as well as ongoing strategic verification, space and strategic defense issues. In 1984, he became
deputy director of the Office of International Security Policy and was responsible for European, African, and Latin American regions. He became director, with responsibility for regional security issues worldwide, in 1985. During this period, Mr. Duelfer also worked with the special coordinator for counterterrorism to develop, implement, and exercise the State Department's terrorism response system. Before joining the Department of State, Mr. Duelfer worked at the White House Office of Management and Budget (1977-1983), where he was responsible for Department of Defense strategic nuclear forces and space programs.
Nevertheless, I still maintain that it smacks of US government propaganda. Pass the salt over here, please.
It's always hard to get a new government installed, operational and having the confidence of the people it serves. No one said it would be easy. But is leaving Saddam in charge better?
It's been done before and quite successfully. By the US. Right after WW2.
We can all sit around and say "too hard"....... or we can give it our best shot.
Well I'll believe it when I see it - the US track record in the region frankly sucks: Ba'ath Party in Iraq, Shah in Iran, and it could be argued to some degree the Taliban in Afghanistan. And as to rolling out Germany & Japan as examples - sorry, but there's been a few since '45 - and the US has placed/propped up some really nasty pieces of work in the last 50 years as well: Suharto, Pinochet, Noriega... etc etc. You're only as good as your last military coup: The proof of the latest pudding in Afghanistan sadly remains to be seen, but things may not be running entirely smoothly there according to some reports. Perhaps this is a vindication of the Discordian Law of Eristic Escalation: "Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos", or perhaps it will all come up roses in the end. We don't know yet.
Is leaving Hussein in charge better? Well in my opinion, no, but as I am not the majority of Iraqis, it's really not for me to say. And until someone can work out a way of asking all the Iraqis whether they want rid of Hussein or not (fairly & without fear of threats/coercion) it's really not for anyone outside of Iraq to say. This fair referendum obviously won't happen, but does highlight the fact that we are all just guessing about what the people of Iraq really think. Common sense tells me they would mostly be glad to see him gone, but common sense also tells me the Earth is flat and the sun goes round it, so is common sense an infallible or even reliable guide?
