He's a nice guy, honest!
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
From: Australia
How is this for a possible scenario?
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that if Iraq is not stopped now they could continue to develop WMD, especially of the biological kind and wreak world wide havoc.
When Saddem H. decides to make a move he may decide to lob a few at Tel Aviv but more likely at the other oil producing states around him, rendering the oilfields intact but uninhabitable until they are decontaminated, a long and expensive job.
In the meantime Iraq can supply oil at $100 per barrel whilst world wide economies start to fail big time. Yes, the West will go in and bring him to book but as he now has his WMD he will take a lot of people with him before he is stopped and it won't increase the supply of oil in the short term.
Good enough reason to stop him before he starts?
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that if Iraq is not stopped now they could continue to develop WMD, especially of the biological kind and wreak world wide havoc.
When Saddem H. decides to make a move he may decide to lob a few at Tel Aviv but more likely at the other oil producing states around him, rendering the oilfields intact but uninhabitable until they are decontaminated, a long and expensive job.
In the meantime Iraq can supply oil at $100 per barrel whilst world wide economies start to fail big time. Yes, the West will go in and bring him to book but as he now has his WMD he will take a lot of people with him before he is stopped and it won't increase the supply of oil in the short term.
Good enough reason to stop him before he starts?
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,014
Likes: 30
From: Swindonshire
Blue Eagle - you could have added to your scenario the 'Bagdhad converted into large glowing piece of glass' gambit.
Of course, as an thoroughly evil refinement of your scenario, we could hit his oilfields with Trident, then raise the price of North Sea Oil to $100 a barrel...
But such flippancy aside, therein lies the nub of the question: if he has WMD (and if not, why have the missing weapons not been found or their destruction properly recorded for external scrutiny??) and as he has already displayed a penchant for employing them, do we sit around waiting for UNMOVIC to find them all, or try to solve the problem?
And if we do that, and if UNMOVIC don't find them, and if he has them and then if he uses them, it'll be no good saying 'See, we told you so!' to President Chirac et al. Now that's an awful lot of 'ifs' that I've put above, but isn't almost everything in international affairs predicated on an awful lot of 'ifs'? The problem is that an alternative scenario to the ultimate use of force if (that word again!) Saddam fails to comply and is in possession of WMD has not been provided.
As for arguments about North Korea and Zimbabwe deserving more attention, I can see the rationale, but can't quite agree with it: the UN has not yet passed resolutions demanding disarmament by North Korea, and been waiting for 12 years for the regime to comply; Uncle Bob has not shown any desire to develop WMD or threaten his neighbours. Both regimes are thoroughly despicable, and we should be doing more than sending Task Force Tatchell to Paris to deal with the latter, but I would respectfully argue that we have to prioritise.
Kim may well do something to change that order, but despite his apparent lunacy, must be well aware that the US (in the form of Clinton) explained that if Kim used WMD 'That would be silly, because his country would cease to exist'...
Now, I'd prefer to see a UN resolution, but not some wishy-washy compromise. It needs to be a 'more time, but with a deadline' resolution. That's to say that if Dr Blix comes back to the UN at a certain specified date and is unable to say 'we have complete co-operation and are now enforcing complete compliance with the resolution', then, sorry, Saddam, but you've had your chance(s). Although the Hitler analogy has been beaten to death with a large stick and mis-applied, its central core retains validity: we did nothing about Hitler's violation of international agreements, (nor Japan's for that matter) and it did far more harm than good in the end.
Of course, as an thoroughly evil refinement of your scenario, we could hit his oilfields with Trident, then raise the price of North Sea Oil to $100 a barrel...
But such flippancy aside, therein lies the nub of the question: if he has WMD (and if not, why have the missing weapons not been found or their destruction properly recorded for external scrutiny??) and as he has already displayed a penchant for employing them, do we sit around waiting for UNMOVIC to find them all, or try to solve the problem?
And if we do that, and if UNMOVIC don't find them, and if he has them and then if he uses them, it'll be no good saying 'See, we told you so!' to President Chirac et al. Now that's an awful lot of 'ifs' that I've put above, but isn't almost everything in international affairs predicated on an awful lot of 'ifs'? The problem is that an alternative scenario to the ultimate use of force if (that word again!) Saddam fails to comply and is in possession of WMD has not been provided.
As for arguments about North Korea and Zimbabwe deserving more attention, I can see the rationale, but can't quite agree with it: the UN has not yet passed resolutions demanding disarmament by North Korea, and been waiting for 12 years for the regime to comply; Uncle Bob has not shown any desire to develop WMD or threaten his neighbours. Both regimes are thoroughly despicable, and we should be doing more than sending Task Force Tatchell to Paris to deal with the latter, but I would respectfully argue that we have to prioritise.
Kim may well do something to change that order, but despite his apparent lunacy, must be well aware that the US (in the form of Clinton) explained that if Kim used WMD 'That would be silly, because his country would cease to exist'...
Now, I'd prefer to see a UN resolution, but not some wishy-washy compromise. It needs to be a 'more time, but with a deadline' resolution. That's to say that if Dr Blix comes back to the UN at a certain specified date and is unable to say 'we have complete co-operation and are now enforcing complete compliance with the resolution', then, sorry, Saddam, but you've had your chance(s). Although the Hitler analogy has been beaten to death with a large stick and mis-applied, its central core retains validity: we did nothing about Hitler's violation of international agreements, (nor Japan's for that matter) and it did far more harm than good in the end.
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
KENNYR – re the twin towers. Many years ago I did some work there. I visited ground zero many months ago. I am extremely fortunate that my former colleagues from that period were not killed on 9/11, but please don’t patronise me by suggesting I don’t understand the enormity (and the wickedness) of what happened there.
KENNYR and DESPERADO. You are attempting to make a link between Saddam and Al-Q. The Bush/Blair publicity machine is attempting to make that link too. Sorry – but no – I’m not convinced. Not one bit. Of course Saddam supports terrorism and has done for years, and is despicable for it. But he does it in an opportunistic way. The only link between Al-Q and Saddam is opportunistic anti-Americanism. If anything, I suspect that Bush/Blair are weakening their credibility with their own people by pushing this link - many of us do not find this link to be even remotely credible.
Archimedes – you make some good points, and I do agree it is not sensible to allow the inspection process go on without an end date. I also agree with you that Chirac is not helping in any constructive way (and as for inviting Mugabe to Paris….). But if I may take a phrase you used: “I would respectfully argue that we have to prioritise.”
OK – so be it, lets prioritise. I thought that the true threat to the UK and the US comes from Al-Q (and supporters). It is a real threat – it concerns me much more than Saddam. I would be a lot more comfortable if our military and intelligence resources were fully focussed on tracking down and stopping Al-Q and supporters.
KENNYR and DESPERADO. You are attempting to make a link between Saddam and Al-Q. The Bush/Blair publicity machine is attempting to make that link too. Sorry – but no – I’m not convinced. Not one bit. Of course Saddam supports terrorism and has done for years, and is despicable for it. But he does it in an opportunistic way. The only link between Al-Q and Saddam is opportunistic anti-Americanism. If anything, I suspect that Bush/Blair are weakening their credibility with their own people by pushing this link - many of us do not find this link to be even remotely credible.
Archimedes – you make some good points, and I do agree it is not sensible to allow the inspection process go on without an end date. I also agree with you that Chirac is not helping in any constructive way (and as for inviting Mugabe to Paris….). But if I may take a phrase you used: “I would respectfully argue that we have to prioritise.”
OK – so be it, lets prioritise. I thought that the true threat to the UK and the US comes from Al-Q (and supporters). It is a real threat – it concerns me much more than Saddam. I would be a lot more comfortable if our military and intelligence resources were fully focussed on tracking down and stopping Al-Q and supporters.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
From: UK, sometimes!
ELondonPox,
Don't you think that is enough? Do you not see that Al-Q has money, the Butcher of Baghdad has WMD's (or the ability to develop them) and they both hate the west, America in particular? The Butcher may not like Al-Q, but he dislikes the west even more and I think he would be perfectly willing to part with some of his WMD's for a few Dinars to build more palaces, whilst his populace starves.
There has been much BS spouted by those against the possible war. I am not for war for the sake of war, BUT I am broad minded enough to look at the big picture and unfortunately think that there is no other way to sort out such an evil regime. The arguments that the west will carpet bomb Iraq and murder thousands of innocent civilians, that the US will use nuclear weapons as a first strike option, that the US is only after Iraqi oil, that any war would be illegal, that we should give dear old Uncle Sadam another 12 years to stick 2 fingers up at the UN, are typical of those that just don't understand what is really happening in the world today. And then we get the anti-sanctions argument! "The nasty west is starving and the Iraqis and depriving them of medicines with their cruel sanctions. We should lift them now." The west is allowing The Butcher to sell oil to buy food and medicine. It is not the fault of the west if he then spends said oil money on building more palaces whilst depriving his people to elicit just those sorts of comments from the tree huggers. I admire their conviction but am amazed at their naivety.
MadMark!!!
The only link between Al-Q and Saddam is opportunistic anti-Americanism.
There has been much BS spouted by those against the possible war. I am not for war for the sake of war, BUT I am broad minded enough to look at the big picture and unfortunately think that there is no other way to sort out such an evil regime. The arguments that the west will carpet bomb Iraq and murder thousands of innocent civilians, that the US will use nuclear weapons as a first strike option, that the US is only after Iraqi oil, that any war would be illegal, that we should give dear old Uncle Sadam another 12 years to stick 2 fingers up at the UN, are typical of those that just don't understand what is really happening in the world today. And then we get the anti-sanctions argument! "The nasty west is starving and the Iraqis and depriving them of medicines with their cruel sanctions. We should lift them now." The west is allowing The Butcher to sell oil to buy food and medicine. It is not the fault of the west if he then spends said oil money on building more palaces whilst depriving his people to elicit just those sorts of comments from the tree huggers. I admire their conviction but am amazed at their naivety.
MadMark!!!
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
From: earth
We should remember that the focus must be on the potential to do harm to our people and/or our national interests. Whilst A-Q and NK have that capability they must also be addressed and we should expect nothing less from our leaders than that they act to safeguard their people. That is why we must sort the Iraqi problem. There we have a ruthless sadistic dictator with recent form and the potential to do great harm to both us and our interests. He has been given ample opportunity to reform peacefully but he is behaving with the traditional regional characteristic of trying to find a way round it. He would rather lose his nation than lose face. If we let him get away with it then we deserve the consequences.
It is simply not good enough to duck the issue or to say 'what about all the others?' Saddam is now first in line and the others will no doubt take notice of what happens to him.
As for those who fear for the Iraqi people, why not ask those in the West who still have families there? They reportedly want Saddam out even though their families may be at risk from the war.
It might be that the other muslim states in the region wish to attack Western interests in the aftermath but the ones I know well would have to put such action out to contract - maybe BAE could bid for it. Should they be unwise enough to spread the conflict, their long term interests would suffer more than ours. They need the West more than we need their oil.
By all means give the weapons inspectors time but after twelve years it is time for action. I did not enjoy being there last time, nevertheless I regret not being young enough to be there this time. Let us not in another few years regret not doing anything.
It is simply not good enough to duck the issue or to say 'what about all the others?' Saddam is now first in line and the others will no doubt take notice of what happens to him.
As for those who fear for the Iraqi people, why not ask those in the West who still have families there? They reportedly want Saddam out even though their families may be at risk from the war.
It might be that the other muslim states in the region wish to attack Western interests in the aftermath but the ones I know well would have to put such action out to contract - maybe BAE could bid for it. Should they be unwise enough to spread the conflict, their long term interests would suffer more than ours. They need the West more than we need their oil.
By all means give the weapons inspectors time but after twelve years it is time for action. I did not enjoy being there last time, nevertheless I regret not being young enough to be there this time. Let us not in another few years regret not doing anything.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: UK
Archimedes
You say:
The answer may lie in the holds of three 35,000 tonners sailing the seas around the middle east. Apparently, according to news sources, they resolutely refuse to make any kind of radio contact (against marine law) and the US is somewhat frightened to stop them or board them for fear that they would scuttled. Thus causing terrible catastrophic damage to the environment.
There is the rub! What to do? It all sounds very plausible to me.
It is the sort of thing that SH would do, and it would answer the vexed question of where these WMD are. Can't send Blix and his team can they!
You say:
if he has WMD (and if not, why have the missing weapons not been found or their destruction properly recorded for external scrutiny??) and as he has already displayed a penchant for employing them, do we sit around waiting for UNMOVIC to find them all, or try to solve the problem?
There is the rub! What to do? It all sounds very plausible to me.
It is the sort of thing that SH would do, and it would answer the vexed question of where these WMD are. Can't send Blix and his team can they!
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Well, maybe three nuclear torpedoes, delivered anonymously, limited by the amount of damage they can cause, sufficient to sink the ships and render harmless their cargo, without trace, would do the job?
Shame it was ever made public really, assuming it is true.
Maybe the three ships they have found are decoys?
Shame it was ever made public really, assuming it is true.
Maybe the three ships they have found are decoys?
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,014
Likes: 30
From: Swindonshire
As this has completely slipped my mind... aren't we (that is the international communi-dy) still stopping and searching vessels that may be trying to take things into Iraq?
One presumes that if this is the case, then the three vessels refusing to comply with marine law are prime cases for boarding.
Assuming that the ships do have Iraqi WMD aboard - obviously, we don't want the sea contaminated with lots of nasties, but - if SH has ordered the ships to be scuttled if boarded, he'd lose his WMD stocks. The leakage of contaminants would rather prove that he was lying, wouldn't it? I can't see that there would be any benefit to Saddam whatsoever.
It'd effectively prove the US's case, and protests that 'this was all we had' would be knocked back with 'You said you didn't have any, so why should we believe you'.
One presumes that if this is the case, then the three vessels refusing to comply with marine law are prime cases for boarding.
Assuming that the ships do have Iraqi WMD aboard - obviously, we don't want the sea contaminated with lots of nasties, but - if SH has ordered the ships to be scuttled if boarded, he'd lose his WMD stocks. The leakage of contaminants would rather prove that he was lying, wouldn't it? I can't see that there would be any benefit to Saddam whatsoever.
It'd effectively prove the US's case, and protests that 'this was all we had' would be knocked back with 'You said you didn't have any, so why should we believe you'.
