Gaddafi's Oddest Idea: Abolish Switzerland

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yes, they "attacked us" by not rolling over and accepting our presence in their country.

Yes, we beat them in battle, but to claim their resistance to our presence IN THEIR COUNTRY (Wolverines!?) equals "attacking us" is disingenuous.

Chris

How on earth is that disingenuous?  We were present in their country by Saddam's agreement.  'Twas part of the cease fire treaty Saddam agreed to, and then repeatedly violated.  Our presence was key part of the bargain: he got to keep control of his country, and in exchange he would guarantee that the free world could enter limited parts of his country for the express purpose of protecting Kuwaitis and Kurds.  

Those treaty violations alone are more than enough to justify the return to hostilities that eventually led to Saddam's overthrow and capture in 2003.

[De Selby]

How on earth is that disingenuous?  We were present in their country by Saddam's agreement.  'Twas part of the cease fire treaty Saddam agreed to, and then repeatedly violated.  Our presence was key part of the bargain: he got to keep control of his country, and in exchange he would guarantee that the free world could enter limited parts of his country for the express purpose of protecting Kuwaitis and Kurds.  

Those treaty violations alone are more than enough to justify the return to hostilities that eventually led to Saddam's overthrow and capture in 2003.

Whether the treaty violations are enough or not, they are clearly not terrorism in the same way that blowing up an airliner full of civilians is terrorism.  Was this about terrorism, or treaties?

[mtnbkr]

Whether the treaty violations are enough or not, they are clearly not terrorism in the same way that blowing up an airliner full of civilians is terrorism.  Was this about terrorism, or treaties?

It's about attacking Iraq.  Any justification will do and no justification is strong enough to go after other aggressor nations, including those who HAVE killed Americans outside the theater of war. 

In the grand scheme of things, Iraq was a minor threat compared to the likes of Iran, North Korea, and maybe China and Russia.  Iran is working on nukes, is in Iraq today (they weren't when Saddam was in power), NK has nukes, China owns us, and Russia is willing to work with the previous three to as a hedge against us.

But Iraq was a soft and convenient target.

Don't take this as misplaced love for Iraq and Saddam.  Frankly, I don't care at all about them, but we wasted a lot of lives and money there when we could have been focusing our efforts elsewhere.  I especially don't like the idea that we HAD to go into Iraq, while our anti-terrorism efforts regarding other nations amount to nothing but talk. 

In the end, I think all we did was waste money and give Iran a reason to pursue nukes.  Unintended consequences anyone?

Chris

[makattak]

In the end, I think all we did was waste money and give Iran a reason to pursue nukes.  Unintended consequences anyone?

Chris

Oh man! If only we weren't in Iraq, Iran wouldn't be pursuing Nuclear Weapons!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4134614.stm

August 2002: Iranian exiles say that Tehran has built a vast uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy water plant at Arak without informing the United Nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, (from March 20 to May 1, 2003) was led by the United States, backed by British forces and smaller contingents from Australia, Denmark, Poland and Spain. Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from March 20 to May 1.

Oh.... woops....

[De Selby]

Yeah, those exiles are extremely reliable sources.  Just look how well their claims about Saddam's WMD's turned out.

mtnbkr, I agree with your view here.  You don't need to love Saddam to see something funny about it.

If we'd had a national debate about Iraq that focused on the actual reasons to go instead of terrorism (which obviously was not the motivating factor), I doubt the decision would've been made to go there. 

[makattak]

Yeah, those exiles are extremely reliable sources.  Just look how well their claims about Saddam's WMD's turned out.

Yeah... they were SOOO far off for Iran...

If you'd have clicked the link, it continues:

September 2002: Construction work begins on Iran's first nuclear reactor at the Bushehr power plant.

December 2002: The existence of sites at Natanz and Arak is confirmed by satellite photographs shown on US television. The US accuses Tehran of "across-the-board pursuit of weapons of mass destruction". Iran agrees to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA).

February 2003: Iranian President Mohammed Khatami reveals that Iran has unearthed uranium deposits and announces plans to develop a nuclear fuel cycle. IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei travels to Iran with a team of inspectors to begin probing Tehran's nuclear plans.

June 2003: Mr ElBaradei accuses Iran of not revealing the extent of its nuclear work, and urges leaders to sign up for more intrusive inspections.

August 2003: Traces of highly enriched weapons-grade uranium found at Natanz.

Yeah... it's all cause of Iraq they did this!

The Iranians didn't have any wicked desires prior to our invading their hated next-door neighbor!

[agricola]

Yeah... it's all cause of Iraq they did this!

The Iranians didn't have any wicked desires prior to our invading their hated next-door neighbor!

Are you suggesting that Iran attacked Iraq?  If so, history disagrees with you.

[makattak]

Are you suggesting that Iran attacked Iraq?  If so, history disagrees with you.

No, I'm suggested they hated Iraq and wanted Nuclear weapons. I'm arguing that saying our invading Iraq is a non sequitor.

[mtnbkr]

Oh man! If only we weren't in Iraq, Iran wouldn't be pursuing Nuclear Weapons!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4134614.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Oh.... woops....

The writing was on the wall for an invasion of Iraq in 2002, the same year construction started.

Do you not think that our activity in Iraq had any accelerating effect on Iran's goals?

Let's not also ignore the fact that Iran is now active in Iraq, something they were not prior to our invasion (at least not as significantly).

In the end, invading Iraq did nothing beneficial, but it did cost us money and lives.  It was pointless.  Iran is still pursuing nukes, and is as belligerent as ever. Iraq isn't "attacking" us as a nation, but plenty of Iraqis are killing our soldiers.  How many of our soldiers died in Iraq prior to 2003?  How many have died this year?  What was accomplished?

I'm not opposed to pummeling an enemy, but we chose Iraq because it was a soft target, not because they were a real threat.  Our hope was to set an example, but all it did was harden their resolve. 

Chris

[Gewehr98]

Iran's nuclear ambitions pre-dated OIF, by a couple decades.

That's all I'm going to say about that.

[makattak]

Iran's nuclear ambitions pre-dated OIF, by a couple decades.

 

Shocking.

[mtnbkr]

Shocking.

And yet, we're in Iraq. 

Looks like our money and lives would have been better spent elsewhere, but that would be real work, wouldn't it?

Oh yeah, we are fighting Iran...in Iraq.  Can't take the fight home to them though, so they're left with a base with which to recover while we deal with the local and foreign fighters.

Once again, our actions in Iraq don't seem to have placated or even slowed Iran's nuclear ambitions at all.  But Saddam isn't "attacking" us anymore. :D

Chris

[makattak]

And yet, we're in Iraq. 

Looks like our money and lives would have been better spent elsewhere, but that would be real work, wouldn't it?

Oh yeah, we are fighting Iran...in Iraq.  Can't take the fight home to them though, so they're left with a base with which to recover while we deal with the local and foreign fighters.

Once again, our actions in Iraq don't seem to have placated or even slowed Iran's nuclear ambitions at all.  But Saddam isn't "attacking" us anymore. :D

Chris

Because Iraq wasn't a terrorist supporting state with designs on nuclear weapons as well.

I'm all for knocking out Iran as well.

How is thinking that ending Iraq's nuclear ambitions was a good idea automatically mean I think we shouldn't end Iran's as well? Obviously they didn't get the message from Iraq (instead they looked at how we bungled North Korea). They need to be sent a STRONGER message.

[mtnbkr]

Because Iraq wasn't a terrorist supporting state with designs on nuclear weapons as well.

I don't have the insight that Gewehr98 has, but based on what has been released to the public, Iraq wasn't accomplishing much with their effort. 

I'm all for knocking out Iran as well.

At least you're consistent. :)

How is thinking that ending Iraq's nuclear ambitions was a good idea automatically mean I think we shouldn't end Iran's as well? Obviously they didn't get the message from Iraq (instead they looked at how we bungled North Korea). They need to be sent a STRONGER message.

And that's the problem.  Historically, people in this region don't respond to force, they respond to being killed.  They also don't appreciate outsiders in their land.  Those two combined seem to draw otherwise uninterested parties to the fight.  It looks to me like squeezing a balloon, you control one portion, but it just bulges out somewhere else.

Dan Carlin made what I thought were some very good points about the whole War on Terror and how we approach the ME: http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/csarchive#Show-158---Geopolitical-Pneumonia

Of course, we'd have to swallow our pride in order to do it that way, but I wonder if the results might make it worthwhile.   

Chris

[Gewehr98]

We kinda boogered up Iraq's enrichment capability during Gulf War I.  Israel did a number on their breeder reactor program, too.

I've got pictures of their shattered/destroyed calutrons somewhere, I should dig them up for giggles. 

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/Calutron.html

I have no doubts that Israel will take matters into their own hands with respect to the Iranian nuclear weapons program, when the time is right. I also don't doubt that Washington D.C. will have little to no effect in dissuading them from accomplishing said task. They've already been practicing for the event.   

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

And that's the problem.  Historically, people in this region don't respond to force, they respond to being killed. 

Gaddafi, anyone?

[mtnbkr]

Gaddafi, anyone?

Out of how many ME despots? 

Besides, if Wikipedia is correct, he was already making overtones to Clinton two years prior to 9/11:

Gaddafi also appeared to be attempting to improve his image in the West. Two years prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks, Libya pledged its commitment to fighting Al-Qaeda and offered to open up its weapons programme to international inspection. The Clinton administration did not pursue the offer at the time since Libya's weapons program was not then regarded as a threat, and the matter of handing over the Lockerbie bombing suspects took priority...Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by US forces in 2003, Gaddafi announced that his nation had an active weapons of mass destruction program, but was willing to allow international inspectors into his country to observe and dismantle them. US President George W. Bush and other supporters of the Iraq War portrayed Gaddafi's announcement as a direct consequence of the Iraq War by stating that Gaddafi acted out of fear for the future of his own regime if he continued to keep and conceal his weapons. Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, a supporter of the Iraq War, was quoted as saying that Gaddafi had privately phoned him, admitting as much. Many foreign policy experts, however, contend that Gaddafi's announcement was merely a continuation of his prior attempts at normalizing relations with the West and getting the sanctions removed. To support this, they point to the fact that Libya had already made similar offers starting four years prior to it finally being accepted.

Threat of force probably lit a fire under him, but he was trying to "come clean" well before OIF.  Does that really count as a victory?

Chris

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Out of how many ME despots?  

Let's see...

The Saudis respond to force.  They respond more easily to money, which is even better.

The Egyptians and Jordanians seem to have taken the hint that Israel is not a pushover nation, and have therefore learned to live in peace together.

The Syrians and Lebanese have both shown that they'll leave you alone for a while after you kick their ass.  They occasionally need a reminder, though.  Short memories, I guess.

Libya, obviously.

So there's half a dozen, right off the top of my head.

Besides, if Wikipedia is correct, he was already making overtones to Clinton two years prior to 9/11:

Threat of force probably lit a fire under him, but he was trying to "come clean" well before OIF.  Does that really count as a victory?

I'll take substance over overtones, myself.  Results, not talk.  Results didn't occur until after we initiated the use of force.

And why wouldn't it count as a victory?  It's a good thing for America and for the world.  Would you somehow prefer that Gaddafi keep causing trouble for everyone?

(Same goes for the elimination of Saddam - good for us and for the wider world.  Definitely a win.)

[mtnbkr]

The Saudis respond to force.  They respond more easily to money, which is even better.
The Egyptians and Jordanians seem to have taken the hint that Israel is not a pushover nation, and have therefore learned to live in peace together.
The Syrians and Lebanese have both shown that they'll leave you alone for a while after you kick their ass.  They occasionally need a reminder, though.  Short memories, I guess.

And yet that entire region continues to be a problem.  That is my point.  You pacify one group, and the troublemakers spring up elsewhere.  Sure, SA might be our "ally", but their Wahhabi terrorists continue to fight elsewhere.  Working from memory, I believe Syria was a haven for Iraq's fighters and what was left of their "weapons of mass destruction", hardly an ally or even  pacified enemy.

Nor have our attempts done anything to discourage the current rogues (Iran and NK).

I'll take substance over overtones, myself.  Results, not talk.  Results didn't occur until after we initiated the use of force.

Maybe you missed the part where his attempts were rebuked by Clinton.  He tried and we said "we're not interested".

And why wouldn't it count as a victory?  It's a good thing for America and for the world.  Would you somehow prefer that Gaddafi keep causing trouble for everyone?

I was questioning whether it was a victory for the WoT considering he had been trying to come clean since before there was a WoT.

(Same goes for the elimination of Saddam - good for us and for the wider world.  Definitely a win.)

I didn't say eliminating was a bad thing (actually, I said I didn't care one way or another about his fate or even the fate of his people), I'm questioning whether or not it was a good use of American money and lives.

Look at it another way, if we do have to take action against Iran or NK, do you think we as a nation are going to be willing to pursue it after years of muddling around Iraq.  Will other nations be supportive (yeah yeah, I know we're supposed to go it alone, but we don't live in a vacuum)?  We burned a lot of capital (men, machines, money, goodwill) on Iraq, capital that could be more useful elsewhere.

Chris