At 10:27 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: 1) >> -the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf >> States constituted a threat to the security of the United States? > >After the first Gulf war there was no threat to Saudi Arabia or anyone >else for that matter
So, do you believe that the US should have withdrawn its forces from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the rest of the Persian Gulf following Gulf War I, as US troops were no longer necessary to defend these countries from Saddam Hussein? If so, why do you believe that during the eight years of his Presidency, during which he was substantially downsizing the US military, Bill Clinton did not do so? Additionally, why do you think that Bill Clinton launched operation "Desert Fox", among other military activities in Iraq, during his Presidency? Do you think that Bill Clinton would have answered "yes" to question #1 above? And if so, do you disagree with Bill Clinton on this point? 2) >> -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi >> Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein inflaming ordinary >> Arabs constituted a threat to the security of the United States? > >Much less inflamitory than invading and occupying a sovern Arab nation. That's legitimate, although the inspiration US troops in Iraq provided to pro-independence demonstrators in Lebanon seems like an important counterpoint to your view. 3) >> -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi >> Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein undermining the >> ability of the US government to press for reform in Saudi Arabia >> constituted a threat to the security of the United States? > >see above So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the benefits to the US of being able to apply increased pressure for reform in Saudi Arabia were outweighed by the increased resentment against the US for deposing Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq? 4) >> -the continued presence of UN sanctions on Iraq, designed to prevent >> Saddam Hussein's further development of WMD's , simultaneously >> impoverishing >> millions of Iraqis, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against us, constituted >> a threat to the security of the United States? > >see above This is interesting. If I understand you correctly, you believe that the resentment against the US in the Arab World for deposing Saddam Hussein, occupying Iraq, and setting up an independent government there outweighs the sum of resentment for US troops being stationed in the Muslim Holy Land, plus the resentment felt against the US for the plight of the Iraqi people under Saddam Husssein and Oli-for-Food, *and* the resentment felt against the US support for its tacit support for the totalitarian Saudi regime. Is that right? 5) >> -the funding of Palestinian terrorists, prolonging the Palestinian-Arab >> conflict, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against the US constituted a >> threat to the security of the United States? >> >> -the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in a >> terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United >> States? > >If the funding of terrorists constitutes justification for invasion then >we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, the nation that funded the 9/11 >attacks. Doug, that's not an answer, it is another question. I have discussed in other threads the requirements for justification for war: 1) There must be a threat 2) Other options must reasonably have been exhausted 3) The war must be likely to do more good than harm 4) There must be a reasonable chance of success Dave Land has argued that Gulf War II did not meat the first critera - that Iraq posted a threat. You don't seem to have answered whether this particular example of Iraq's actions constituted a threat. In any case, while Saudi funding of terrorists is also a threat to the US, the proposal for an invasion of Saudi Arabia does not, in my mind, meet the other criteria for justifying a war. 6) >> -the distinct possibility that France, China, and Russia would succeed in >> the lifting of UN sanctions and the ending of UN WMD inspections in Iraq, >> allowing Saddam Hussein - who had very nearly succeed twice before in >> assembling nuclear weapons (Osirisk and just before Gulf War I) - to >> resume his nuclear weapons program, constituted a threat to the security >> of the >> United States, even after US intelligence services had utterly missed the >> development of nuclear programs in Iraq (twice), India, Pakistan, Iran, >> and the DPRK? > >The lifting of sanctions may have been a possibility before 9/11. Not >after. I'm curious as to why you believe that. Do you think that those elements in the world that were pushing for a lifting of sanctions on Iraq so a connection between 9/11 and Iraq? If so, what was that connection? 7) >> -the stockpiling of large quantities of anthrax, for which Saddam Hussein >> could provide no account, constituted a threat to the security of the >> United States, even after an untraced anthrax terrorist attack on the >> United States had already killed 5 innocent Americans and debilitated >> several others? > >Which, after two years of occupation we can provide absolutely no account >either. No evidence whatsoever. This is ex post facto reasoning. The question, however, is knowing affirmatively that Iraq at one time had large stockpiles of anthrax, and knowing that at that point in time that Iraq was not providing an affirmative account of those stockpiles, did this consitute a threat? 8) >> -the stockpiling of other biological agents constituted a threat to the >> security of the United States? > >Exhaustive searches and a billion dollars and not a trace of WMDs. This is again ex post facto. We know affiirmatlvely that Iraq had other biological agents, and at the time of the decision to go to war, Iraq had provided no affirmative accouting of their disposal. Did this constitute a threat to the security of the United States? 9) >> -the stockpiling of chemical weapons, for which Saddam Hussein could >> provide no account, and which Saddam Hussein could probably sell >> undetected on the international black market, constituted a threat to >> the security of the United States? > >Pre-war inspections and two years of occupation and no evidence of WMDs >except some shells Sadam probably lost in the '80s. This is again ex post facto. We know affiirmatlvely that Iraq had other biological agents, and at the time of the decision to go to war, Iraq had provided no affirmative accouting of their disposal. Did this constitute a threat to the security of the United States? 10) >> -the distinct possibility that Saddam Hussein, possessor of some of the >> world's largest oil revenues, and who had twice before attempted to >> acquire nuclear weapons, could purchase a fully-assembled nuclear weapon >> from the >> utterly impoverished regime of the DPRK, beginning approximately in 2001, >> constituted a threat to the security of the United States? > >The even more distinct possibility that the people that funded 9/11 - >elements of the Saudi government could do the same. Again, this ducks the question as to whether or not Iraq constituted a threat. So, to summarize, Dave Land argued that Iraq was not a threat to the United States. I asked 11 questions regarding whether Iraq did indeed actually pose a threat. Your answers, so far appear to be: 1) No - Iraq was not going to attack its neighbors 2) Yes - Iraq was a threat to the image of America among Arabs, but going to war would exacerbate this threat 3) Yes - Iraq was a threat to the image of America among Arabs, but going to war would exacerbate this threat 4) Yes - Iraq was a threat to the image of America among Arabs, but going to war would exacerbate this threat 5a) Presumablky Yes - Iraq was a threat to the image of America among Arabs, but going to war would exacerbate this threat 5b) <No Answer> - on whether funding terrorists constitutes a threat 6) No - there was no chance of sanctions being lifted 7) <No Answer> - based on information available at the time 8) <No Answer> - based on information available at the time 9) <No Answer> - based on information available at the time 10) <No Answer> - on whether the ability to purchase a nuclear weapon from the DPRK constitute a threat Thanks again. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
