posted 12-17-98 08:14 AM ET            

My personal position on this is still being formed, but I can be sure about the following:
-I'm very sad that military force is being used. A big part of me would love to simply say that nothing justifies murder and condemn the attack.
-I'd love to see a diplomatic solution to the problem and see the air-strike stopped as quickly as possible, to avoid any more casualties.
-I'm very worried that UK/US has taken action on their own - don't you think that UN resolution should be enforced by UN?
-I'm also very worried that Hussain is able to defy UN for as long as he pleases - making UN look pretty teethless (a bunch of people telling everyone to be nice to each other or else... eh, well, just be nice to each other :-()

Can anyone tell me if the allegations that US/UK broke UN rules are true? The point of UN is that all the countries stick to its rules - the ones that don't are brought in line by others. The fact that some country breaks UN rules shouldn't justify any other county to break them too.

SOO, what *should* have been done? UN, Russia and China stress that this should be resolved diplomatically. A very nice point, but the facts are:

-Hussain has lost war against the UN and signed a treaty in which he promised destruction of WMD and allowed UN inspectors to check up on that.
-Hussain has repeatedly broken this treaty, withheld access to sites that inspectors wanted to see, and waited to see what the response of UN would be (conveniently, giving him enough time to potentially move any secret weapons around).
-Diplomatic efforts have been started in each such case, and threats have been used to bring Hussain back in line.
-Hussain has defied UN resolution while he felt safe from military action, making new promises when things started heating up and the circle repeated
-This is not a fact, but I think it can be concluded that Hussain has/had no intention to cooperate with UN. Not ever, not in any way.

In face of this, I don't quite understand the argument for diplomacy. Ok, Russians will talk to Hussain, he'll say - ok, the inspectors can return and... ehm, we're back where we where before. So, those of you that oppose the attack, I'd like to point out that the alternative is a future of Iraq armed with WMD, determined to terrorise its neighbours. We can wait until Iraq will attack its neighbours again (and I believe that while Hussain is in power, the danger is great), and UN will be forced to use military force. Only that this time there's the potential of Iraq being able to fire bio/chemical weapons (or even Nukes) at UN countries. Would UN risk that? Or whould they appease Hussain again? I think that from our history we can clearly see that appeasement of dictators is a road to disaster. I presume that similiar people suggested diplomacy when Hitler broke the Versailles treaty point by point. I guess those poeple were still suggesting diplomacy when Hitler annexed Austria. Or when he invaded Czechoslovakia. Did these people talk about the diplomacy when Hitler invaded Poland? I wouldn't be too surprised. However I believe that if Hitler would be stopped earlier, WW2 would have not happened. I think that the chances of stopping Hussain by diplomacy are pretty much the same as were the chances of stopping Hitler by diplomacy (read: null). So please, before you use the 'd' word again - please at least outline what you think we'd chieve by that.

So what will the airstrike achieve? Well, to be honest, I'm not very optimistic. Most likely:
-innocent civilians will be killed
-(with luck) some of the Hussain's military capabilities will be crippled
-general public of Iraq is likely to turn against US/UK, strengthening Hussain's grip on his power.

Airstrike has the potential of causing even more damage than inaction would. There's a chance of inciting a revolt (very remote), but is this a gamble worth taking?

I feel that airstrikes should be used as preparation for ground forces, on their own their effectivness is very limited. In my opinion, UN made a BIG mistake when they failed to invade Baghdad and remove Hussain's regime.

So, diplomacy with Hussain didn't and most likely won't ever work. On the other hand airstrikes are going to kill innocent people and have a very limited effect. I haven't yet decided which one of the two is a 'lesser' evil. I don't know what a 'third' way is in this case (support of the oposition? supplying them with arms or even supplying air&ground support?), but if I'd have to chose (with a gun against my head), I'd go for the military action.

posted 12-17-98 09:57 AM ET            

Also, supposedly Iraq shifted some documents around so the inspection team wouldn't find them and even tried to destroyed some.

Just heard that on the news.

Oh well. What troubles me the most (other than that people will get killed) is that the action was not taken by UN itself...

I'd really like to hear what solutions Russia & China are proposing...

posted 12-17-98 11:02 AM ET            

I was not drawing a parralel between Iraq and pre-war Germany. I just wanted to say (maybe too vaguely) that the "innocent civilians" might as well be not "innocent" or "civilians". The nation of Iraq is partly responsible for having him as a boss, you must admit that.

posted 12-17-98 01:53 PM ET            

That being said, the US/UK coalition seem to be the only parties willing to take action against a nation concealing its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capabilities. Granted, other nations do have these capabilities and are not under UN sanction- but few countries have a demonstrated willingness to use them and a tendency to start regional wars. Also, such nations do not sit so near major world oil reserves.

Ultimately, the only NATO country threatened by Iraqi weapons is Turkey. The question we should ask is what is Turkey's stance on this? What sould Saudi Arabia like to do? What about Kuwait, Qatar, and even Iran? We now pretty much what Israel would like, what about Jordan? The UN should leave decisions on this matter primarily up to the nations most threatened physically by such weapons, and secondarily to nations with economies threatened by Iraqi aggression.

Unfortunately, that's not the way the UN works. France, which probably has little stake in the enterprise gets to piss and moan, as does China. But the acts of US/UK alone would not be as effective as a coalition of stakeholders with a common aim.

posted 12-17-98 02:36 PM ET            

I quite simply do not find Clinton credible on enforcing strict adherence to a rigorous inspection regeme. Before Clinton's grand jury testimony, his policy was of avoiding conflict. Ever since the sabre rattling early this year, the US administration has put pressure on the inspectors to NOT try to go anywhere that might cause a problem. So for many months this year there wasn't a real inspection regeme going. But when impeachment became very possible, Clinton becomes a hard ass, in his own weeny way. First he lauches cruise missles, supposedly in retaliation for bombings of US Embasies, but now that significantly more information is out, just about all of the justifications for the attacks have proved false or flimsy. And now there has to be very intense inspections in Iraq, why? So, Sadam will protest, and we can attack.

posted 12-17-98 02:50 PM ET            

I can't see why you can seriously be worried about maximum few hundred dead civilians. Them getting killed makes it possible for lots of others to remain alive and perhaps in a better world.

Removing Saddam from his seat is crucially important. Well not only removing Saddam, but also changing the government. Removing a the military status of the strongest country in the region would decrease the need for an army in the neighbouring countries. For instance Iran could breath freely and perhaps focus on modernisicing her government and economy. The only exception might be Turkey, if the Kurds formed bases in norhthern Iraq while the country was in anarchy.

I concur, peasant revolt is very unlikely to happen. But a revolution "forced" by US, UK and perhaps UN might succeed. Of course it would mean unrest throughout the country and perhaps a civil war, but it's better than letting the current status continue. If there would be no changes, there will be trouble. Either the economy will collapse or there will be a war.

Starvation and governments attempts to extinguish unrest will cause lots of refugees. There are only two countries in the area that haven't fought agains Iraq in the last ten years and therefore maybe willing to receive refugees: Jordania and Syria. Both of them already have Palestines around and a weak economy. A huge famine would be near.

And if Sad decided to help his position by a war, like oh so many leaders have done and will always do. Just think of Russia in WWI or Clinton right now... What will he attack?
My bet is Iran. All the other countries are either allied with it or with US. And a war between those two would give nothing to anyone.

I hate world politics right now. It's easy to see a pattern. Some bad little guy does something evil. US and UK want to retaliate. Russia opposes instantly and China and France will follow. It's stupid. Russia opposes only to make it still look like a major power. That it's not anymore. Without a seat in the security counsil it would have no importance whatsoever in all these little crises. China also gains nothing but a bad reputation. But her word has more pressure and if something was bound to happen near her true intrests, like in Spratley Islands, the word of China will be the laudest. But France, that's the worst. Just last week they demanded EU should have only one foreign policy. Now the rest of us do, but France is on her own!

posted 12-17-98 03:26 PM ET            

Problem: The nation-state of Iraq has biological and/or chemical weapons. (I'm going to take this as a given)

Problem: Iraq, under the Hussein regime is an unpredictable and belligerent player in the volitile Middle East.

Position: Iraq cannot be allowed to deploy its weapons of mass destruction. (This is another given)

Current UN response: Diplomatic bargaining that, so far, has had *no* visible impact on any of the problems above.

Current US/UK response: targeting high-value targets for destruction. (gee, target-fever ). There is little credible evidence that any WMD have been destroyed by this approach. So, no visible impact on the problem.

There we are. Both approaches have been tried and Saddam probably still has the same capability he started the week with.

From my perspective the only thing that's going to end this is absolute control of Iraq by the UN or its designees. Sadaam has nothing to lose. His civilian losses have no meaning to him.

This means this: 20-year-olds with rifles standing all over Iraq for a long time. Are we willing to pay this price? We'll be reviled by half the planet, terrorism will skyrocket, the economic effects will be negative in the extreme.

posted 12-17-98 03:31 PM ET            

This war is a disaster,since US and UK operate without UN clearance.

Whatever the reasons,whatever the outcome,the world has lost.

In this case I believe that US and UK is,in a way,just as bad as Iraq.

Iraq has ignored UN demands for some time now,thus,US and UK ignores UN directives and decides to go to war.

This is scary.

Does this mean,that if any nation someway steps on the toes of US/UK,they will attack?

(OK,I exaggurate,but...)

Furthermore,I dislike the idea that one or a few nations decides to act "World poliece" the way US/UK has done.

This IS a job for the UN.

So start paying your debts to UN (This is primarily directed at US.),so we can get some serious,and diplomatically accepteble,action.

Kirel

posted 12-17-98 03:41 PM ET            

Yet giving those to countries that mandate is choosing the best from bad options.

But Kirel: You speak the words of wisdom. Why would UN support US if US doesn't pay her debts? If only US wasn't more powerfull alone...

posted 12-17-98 03:55 PM ET            

While Iraq is ruled by Suddam, it is an emeny state.

Iraq citizens are not capable of a revolt, remember the Elite Republican Guard.

Solutions:
1. Erase Iraq. Low to no friendly causalities, Big moral problem.

2. With the support of the common Iraq citizen(which is a must), invade and esthabish a US/Britain terriorty, since us two are the only ones apparently willing, ruled by marshall law. With Iraq citizen phased into a US/Britain controlled army. High friendly causalities with a permanent end to Saddam, though not nessaraly a lasting peace

3. Bomb Iraq every three to four years. What we appear to be doing now.

4. Let Saddam win.

posted 12-17-98 04:49 PM ET            

2) Tolls, I doubt the targeting priority was causing civilian casualties. I'm sure the US/GB are doing their best to bomb military/industrial complexes while minimizing civilian casualties, if for no other reason because of the PR implications. As I stated in the other thread, I think some, possibly even a majority, of the blame must be placed in Hussein's lap.

3) One of the reasons the US/GB felt they needed to go without explicit support from the UN is that the knew that a diplomatic solution would be completely pointless, given Hussein's history. They knew that at least one of the other three permanent members of the Security Council would veto any action. Personally I think France would eventually have given support, but I doubt there would be any hope of getting support from the PRC. I don't mean this to neccessarily excuse these actions, merely my explanation for them.

posted 12-17-98 05:41 PM ET            

I think the best way to get rid of Saddam is to send some (robotic) snipers into Iraq and let them kill Saddam (it's cheaper than shooting tommahowks and throwing bombs)

posted 12-17-98 05:49 PM ET            

But the issue here is a bit deeper: enforcement of international law. The UN has scant executive power, especially when it comes to armed force. The UN is not a model for world government, but rather a tool for diplomacy....

posted 12-17-98 06:38 PM ET            

The UN is NOT a world goverment. And was never to be a "police force". To be a police force someone needs to have a gun and a big stick.

What i really cannot understand is all these anti-american people saying we should just leave Iraq allown.

If we had followed that logic the vaste majority of y'll would be under red flags and even the idea of freedom would not be posible.

Frankly their is always going to be some nation that has the biggest voice. Would you rather it be China? Or Russia? Or the EU?
Or the Americans, who at least have the idea of freedom for everyone. As opposed to the others....

posted 12-17-98 06:42 PM ET            

"Kill 1 man, it's a tragedy. Kill 10,000,000, it's a statistic"
-J Stalin

posted 12-17-98 06:51 PM ET            

Now I'm not saying that the US/UK are "braver" or anything, what I'm saying is, if the US/UK have different interests, FR/CH/RU can't stop them with ethical nonsense they don't believe in the first place.

I really feel sorry for the poor Iraqi civilians, but what could we do about them? Most of them are already brainwashed beyond help...

posted 12-17-98 07:32 PM ET            

The only solution I can see is putting up radio and television stations up in the entire country after this Gulf War. Bring the world to the private Iraqi and not just news (propaganda) but also entertainment (Babewatch, Shaft ) and whatever is shown on regular television stations (Arabic TV as well even though it's pretty bad).
Hand out those radios with handles instead of batteries, let them see/hear for themselves.
Bring the entire world to the Iraqi people and let them make educated choices.
Make it a part of the peace treaty when that time comes.
And if Saddam forbids TVs he'll lose a propaganda mean himself.

posted 12-17-98 09:08 PM ET            

MOSCOW (AP) -- Russian legislators agreed Thursday to consider a motion appealing to Monica Lewinsky to help halt the American attack on Iraq.

"The State Duma appeals to Ms. Lewinsky to undertake corresponding measures to restrain the emotions of Bill Clinton," said the motion by nationalist lawmaker Alexander Filatov.

posted 12-17-98 09:17 PM ET            

Russia has now apparently recalled its ambassador to the United States. It is also calling further talks about START-2 ratification pointless.

posted 12-18-98 12:08 AM ET            

Perhaps the US should consider a small insertion force landing on the coast. Such a force should consist of 10 to 30 specially trained marines, all of whom will be killed almost immediately, except for one exceptional individual. He (she?) would be armed with a personal weapon of much destructive power, such as a pistol or crowbar. From there, he would establish a beachhead and continue to cut a swath through the Iraqi defenses, picking up more and more effective weapons as he goes. When injured, the marine would likely be able to liberate medi-kits from fallen foes on his way to the next objective.

Different battlefields could include; the Desert, the Village, the Burning Oilfields (with particle rendering for realistic smoke), the Checkpoint, and the Airfield (great opportunity for a night scenario).

The final objective would likely be one of Saddam's palaces, where the marine would encounter the Elite Republican Guard, (foes capable of attacking in packs, with enhanced AI capable of using terrain to their advantage) Finally, he would find an underground bunker, where he would be set upon by Iraqi cyborgs with portable S.C.U.D. launchers, and with his last remaining health and ammo, he would at last confront the Alien-controlled bionic mustachioed, MECHA-Saddam.

With MECHA-Saddam's defeat, we would likely see nothing more than a few lines of cliche congratulatory text, but at least we could rest knowing that we had helped put down unrest in the middle east, and brought peace to many people. At least until the Desert Fox expansion pack: "Clinton's impeachment"...

posted 12-18-98 05:23 AM ET            

The UN may not be the most powerful military organisation in the world,but it IS their job to,first,try to solve the problem peacefully (OK,I agree,they have been quiet slow),and THEN give different countries (Say US,or UK) mandate to intervene with arms.

posted 12-18-98 01:29 PM ET            

MR CLINTON , YOU CAN NOT WASH DIRTY SPOTS ON A WOMAN'S DRESS USING INNOCENT PEOPLE'S BLOOD...

posted 12-18-98 07:51 PM ET            

----

The CIA could make an attempt to assasinate Hussein if the president ordered it. Why? The prohibition against assasination is only in the form of an executive order so if the president so chooses, he can add "except in this case".

----

posted 12-18-98 08:40 PM ET            

Russia would be crazy to do anything else. They need the US.

posted 12-18-98 11:27 PM ET            

Facts:
1) You cannot substitute diplomacy for force, only the threat of force. If the threat is being ignored, you must use force.

2) You cannot impose you will upon a defeated state unless you have troops on the street. Even then it's extremely difficult to do (witness WWII occupation of France, English occupation of Northern Ireland, and the U.N in Somalia). A defeated state is not likely to voluntarily allow itself to be oppressed in any way.

3) Trade sactions are not effective. Poverty will not affect a dictator. Revolution is not an option, in that even poorly trained modern infantry is a match for any number of unhappy 'peasants'. Iraq has a very large conventional army with which to suppress its people (see point 2).

4) China, Russia, and France have offered no workable alternatives to this action. They have condemned this action out of hand. It must be seen that they are happier for Saddam to possess ABC weapons than for the US/UK to take any action on this matter.

posted 12-18-98 11:30 PM ET            

MOSCOW: Is the Cold War heating up again? China and Russia's table-pounding at the Security Council over the ongoing Iraq attack is still mostly show. But history could look back on Operation Desert Fox as the U.S. snub that drove the once loaded-with-nukes and future loaded-with-money superpowers into a fearsome pairing. "This is the first time in years that a Russo-Chinese alliance really looks possible," says TIME Moscow bureau chief Paul Quinn-Judge. "Both countries feel that the U.S. is treating them like second-class world citizens, and there's a general political feeling that they have to start fighting back."
Which is not to say that the Pentagon needs to budget for WWIII just yet. "If Russia put its troops on alert, the world would crack up laughing," says Quinn-Judge. "And it still needs money from the International Monetary Fund. So it's in the worst possible position to be angry right now." But Quinn-Judge says that Russia's Prime Minister (and faux president) Yevgeny Primakov sees eye to eye with Chinese leader Jiang Zemin on a lot of international issues -- including his grumpiness about the current unipolar world. "If Primakov is around past his current term or becomes president," he says, "he has a very long memory."

posted 12-19-98 12:46 AM ET            

The Duma just likes to attack the US to get votes. But they understand that if they ever want to have power or to be in NATO they have to be friends with the US.