I would like to know what the US is going to do once they get into Iraq. Just impose democracy with the click of finger, just like that. We had a documentary down here in Australia recently. On it was a highly respected former CIA agent. I forget his name, but I think it was Bauer (not related to the 24 dude). He said that it would crazy and next to impossible to impose democracy on Iraq at the moment. You have the sunni, and kurds, and the shi-ites all struggling for power. A recipe for disaster and civil unrest.
Thomas Friedman, of the NY post(correct me if I'm wrong), in 91 argued the case that the US should NOT go all the way to Bagdad and depose Saddam because of the potential fracturing and destabilisation it could result in. I'd like to know what has changed since then.
A former prime minister down here in Australia was few months ago citing CIA reports that anticipated casualties as high as 300,000. I dont know if the Iraqi people will be too willing to jump on the US band wagon with that much death going on. Lets not buy into this smart weapons nonsense some likes us to swallow either. There is going to be a lot of death over there.
The country is going to be potentially wrecked. With much death and civil unrest there is very real possibility that peace keepers are going to be needed for quite some time. Thats the down side. Of course the up side is that Saddams WMD capabilty is going to be gone for sure.
But there is a question as to how much of a threat Iraq really is. Yes, Saddam is a nasty piece of work. But UNSCOM did remove a large degree of his capabilities, far more than the Gulf war ever did. This seems to be forgotten.
I honestly dont know. Saddam has to go. He is an evil SOB, but so are a lot of other world leaders. How much of threat he really poses I am uncertain, but I think the Bush camp is over stating the threat somewhat. I am certainly worried about the potential fallout a conflict with Iraq could bring, it doesn't look all rosy to me.
But lets talk about WMD and the bigger picture. A lot is said of how dangerous Iraq is. What about the US. They have more nukes than anyone. The non proliferation treaty says that nations, like Iraq, who dont have nukes should never get them. It further says that nations that do have them should get rid of them. I dont see the US doing much on the disarmament front. They have about 7000 plus nukes...(about 7000 more than Saddam) and they want to FURTHER inspire the arms race with a reagan like star wars program. Yes, Saddam is dangerous, he shouldn't have nukes. But I think the bigger picture is being lost a little.
I also think that a lot of really important issues are being relegated to the backburner. Things like GLOBAL disarmament. Things like Green house, of which Bush is also dragging his heals on. These are real problems and not much seems to be happening.
A lot of people seem to think its ok that the US has all these nukes. Of course lets not forget what causes other nations wanting nukes: its the fact that other nations have them. Oh, people say, the US wont launch an attack, we trust them. Well dont forget about what the US did to japan. Now you may be able to justify to me one one nuke being dropped on Japan, but not the second one. Apparently very good people can do very evil things, people shouldn't forget this little lesson. People shouldn't forget Chernonbyl (sorry for the spelling) either. A nuke crisis doesn't have to be caused deliberately.
A lot of people like to chastise Saddam for keeping his people in poverty while he builds all those mansions. Of course Saddam is a tyrrant. But lets look in our own backyard. How many people in the west live an opulent lifestyle while millions, hell, billions live destitute lives both within and outside the country. Are we that much better than Saddam on this front.
Heres a little stat we humans shouldn't be too proud of. We are all amazed at the extent of scientific development that humans have accomplished. Just remember that 60% of scientists work in the military, they are in the job of killing people. About another 30+% work for private firms, they are in the profit game. A handful of scientists are actually doing research for its own sake...for the sake of learning. I dont know, 60% of science is devoted to bomb making,,,,,hmmmm.
Edited by - Zep on 4 January 2003 5:20:19