The new terrorist threat

[billvon 2,991]

A while back I was complaining about how it doesn't make much sense to attack Iraq if the purpose is to eliminate dangerous threats throughout the world - Pakistan has nukes, supports terrorism and is always on the brink of war over Kashmir, and North Korea has ICBM's that will reach the US and is building two nuclear reactors (that we sold them!) that can be used to produce plutonium. In addition, of course, N Korea is part of the now-famous Axis of Evil, and us adding them to that list presumably didn't make them any friendlier. They are both much greater threats to our security than Iraq, a country that simply does not have the ability to hurt us that these other two countries do.

Now we find out that N Korea has a nuclear weapons program, and the technology for it likely came from Pakistan. (In fact we found out two weeks ago, but the information was withheld until after the Congressional vote on the use of force in Iraq.) What does this mean for our future?

One issue is that it's going to be a lot harder to convince the UN to go along with any invasion of Iraq (although I think they will still be amenable to enforced inspections.) Any claim we make that Iraq is an imminent threat to our national security is going to sound a little hollow, when another proclaimed US enemy has both a nuclear program and the means to deliver the weapons to us. We run the risk of being seen as a country who only wants to beat up the little kids, because the big ones might actually fight back.

It also, of course, will call into question exactly who we are calling allies. Had Hussein pledged his allegiance to the fight on terror, we might well be threatening Pakistan with invasion right now - after all, they aid terrorists and give out nuclear weapon technology to enemy countries! Can't get worse than that. And we do have a history of making alliances with people we don't like, including Hussein. We risk being seen as a country whose alliances are for sale to the highest bidder.

Finally, the response from the white house has been the opposite response that Iraq has seen to date - US diplomats have urged China and Russia to use diplomacy to deal with the N Korean's treaty violations, about as far from the "Hussein must go; we must topple him" speeches as you can get. I fear the message we are sending the rest of the world is that, if you wish the US to deal with you in a diplomatic fashion, you better get nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. After all, it would be both embarrassing and dangerous to get caught without them, as Hussein has realized. If our goal is a well-armed world I suppose this is a good thing, but I don't look forward to the day when every government out there makes getting even a few nukes and ICBM's as a top priority. If our goal is reduction in nuclear weapons stockpiles we are setting some very bad precedents.

On the other hand, some good may come of this. The white house has indicated it's willing to go ahead with inspections of Iraq without a summary invasion at the first sign of problems, and go back to the UN to decide on the use of force if it becomes neccesary.. If we set the precedent that you can't get away with ignoring UN resolutions, and that the world government will back up its resolutions with force, our problems with N Korea may be amenable to the same sort of resolution.

[SudsyFist 0]

don't get me started... i'll prolly go off until either sangiro or dod tells me to stop!

steve

[quatorze 1]

Terrorism= Saudia Arabia, or I'm I the only one who reallizes that the US Gov't/ elected officals depend on the campaign contributions from Oil companies to really deal with the facts.

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle

[FallRate 0]

I had a very wise teacher once who sarcastically pointed out that the solutions to all the worlds's problems can be found by spending an afternoon at the neighborhood barber-shop. That same sentiment seems to apply to on-line forums.

[Sarcasm]If the leaders of the world would only stop by DZ.com for some guidance then we could all rest easy.[/Sarcasm]

[NotSoMuchSarcastic] There is the possibility that the "evil" leaders of the world, after visiting DZ.com, would become so obsessed with Boobies that they have no time for their evil plans.[/NotSoMuchSarcastic]

FallRate

[quatorze 1]

Quote

I had a very wise teacher once who sarcastically pointed out that the solutions to all the worlds's problems can be found by spending an afternoon at the neighborhood barber-shop. That same sentiment seems to apply to on-line forums.

[Sarcasm]If the leaders of the world would only stop by DZ.com for some guidance then we could all rest easy.[/Sarcasm]

I think that we sould get all the "evil leaders" together, and maybe the French ones as well and make them spend a day at Disney Land. I think that if the see what we do for fun and how insane it is, they will be scared to death of what we will do in a war when we are pissed off.
[NotSoMuchSarcastic] There is the possibility that the "evil" leaders of the world, after visiting DZ.com, would become so obsessed with Boobies that they have no time for their evil plans.[/NotSoMuchSarcastic]

FallRate

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle

[AggieDave 6]

Funny, if Truman would have let MacArther cross the 38th parallel in force a while back, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation...See what happens when you don't take care of problems when they occur (please feel free to take that comment and apply it to our other "terror friends").

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[quatorze 1]

Quote

Funny, if Truman would have let MacArther cross the 38th parallel in force a while back, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation...See what happens when you don't take care of problems when they occur (please feel free to take that comment and apply it to our other "terror friends").

And on that note during the US's war with Mexico, we really should have taken over Canada instead of letting them suffer under the torture of all thay sucky beer!

*runs and hides in anticipation*

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle

[jtval 0]

Quote

don't get me started... i'll prolly go off until either sangiro or dod tells me to stop!

steve

I agree. I usually stay away from these forums but..
If we set the precedent that you can't get away with ignoring UN resolutions, and that the world government will back up its resolutions with force, our problems with N Korea may be amenable to the same sort of resolution
I agree to an extent but if that precedent was inplace to begin with dont you think international terrorism would've been a priority years ago?

Funny, if Truman would have let MacArther cross the 38th parallel in force a while back, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation
this applies to saddam also, we never learn from our mistakes. we're like the big retatded kid who knocks people around until the big father figure yells out "that enough."
life has changed a lot since sept 11th I see all kinda of small changes in society. and even though america isn't perfect I still think its the best place to be! at least for now! I persoonally think shits about to get thick in the next few years! but enough of that I'm gonna go skydiving while we are still allowed to!

My photos

My Videos

[Magistr8 0]

I have to say that comming from an americian the beer claim is to be taken with a grain of salt. I contest that our beer is better than yours anydya of the week.

Let the record show that we canadians have bottled water as wel only we buy it at the supermarket and ont the vendor.

"Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools." Napoleon Bonaparte

[weatherman1977 0]

i think u are somewhat right. I is tough to fight a country with nukes. BUT, that is why we need to go after Iraq. When they get nukes it will be to late. You won't be able to negotiate with them then.

[jtval 0]

Cant be that hard to fight a country with nukes...Al Queda did it, with our own planes!

My photos

My Videos

[weatherman1977 0]

i agree they attacked us, but they didn't win!!!!

[jtval 0]

um, how can you tell, we havent accomplished much to end this WAR.

My photos

My Videos

[weatherman1977 0]

comon, your smarter than that. It is easy to pop shots at any country when you are a small group of people. Look at the sniper in DC. It is all a matter of time before we catch him/her, and likewise destroy a large part of Al queda.
The enemys target is huge. For them to attack the US, the have a big area to hit with reletively small impacts. I am saying, as far as a war goes 3000 dead on 9/11 is a small number for a war.
We have a smaller target to hit with a bigger weapon. And if we really wanted to, we could take out 1 million people in about 1 second. But we're smater than that. It will take time, and it will take loss of life, but we will finish the job. It is mostly political BS in our way right now.

One year ago we said, we fill fight any country that has or harbor terrorism. A good deal of the world agreed with us and were on our side. NOW, all of sudden it is in the past and noone wants to get their hands dirty. If we wait another attack will happen, and we will have to make a new speach, but maybe that will speed up the process on our systematic destruction of terrorism.
I am not stupid enough to think we can wipe out terrorism, but if we put enough fear into countries that support it, it will cause those countries currently supporting it to fear invasion and eventual death. This will make it harder for terrorist to form large groups. The road is long....20 or 30 years, but progress will be made.

Just remember who won the race... It wasn't the hare!

[jtval 0]

I hope youre right, Im going skydiving have a good weekend!

My photos

My Videos

[weatherman1977 0]

Safe jumping my friend ~~~~~

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

North Korea has ICBM's that will reach the US

North Korea does not have ICBMs. They have an ICBM development program which was suspended in 1998 due to the US's promise to help them build two nuclear reactors and some other committments. I believe the suspension is scheduled to end in 2003. It might have already been raised.

Up until now North Korea has never flown a missile over 1,000 miles. The NoDong2 was the longest at 800 miles. The Taepo Dong 2 (3700 mile range) cannot carry a nuclear warhead and cannot be modified to do so(there are conflicting reports on the modification potential though). It also has never been tested. The US is approximately 5500 miles from North Korea. Most analysts don't believe North Korea will develop a nuclear ICBM that can reach the US mainland before 2010.

Quote

They are both much greater threats to our security than Iraq, a country that simply does not have the ability to hurt us that these other two countries do.

I really don't see how you can support this argument. They may have the potential to be a greater threat, but they are not currently a greater threat. When was the last time that a North Korean or Pakistan government back group attacked American interests? I can't remember one in the last 10 years. Iraq was linked to an attempted assassination attempt on Bush Sr. back in 1993. Clinton did nothing in response. They are firing and lighting up our planes patrolling the no-fly zones on a weekly basis. These no-fly zones are UN mandated not US. They are a current threat.

Quote

Now we find out that N Korea has a nuclear weapons program

We've known about their nuclear weapons program for a good while. I was briefed on it while I was in the Army back in the mid 90s. Maybe the Pakistan link is new but not the NWP. Clinton negotiated for it to be shut down but I think everyone has always taken that with a grain of salt.

Quote

We risk being seen as a country whose alliances are for sale to the highest bidder.

I think we are probably a country whose alliances are in our best interest at the time.

Quote

Finally, the response from the white house has been the opposite response that Iraq has seen to date - US diplomats have urged China and Russia to use diplomacy to deal with the N Korean's treaty violations, about as far from the "Hussein must go; we must topple him" speeches as you can get. I fear the message we are sending the rest of the world is that, if you wish the US to deal with you in a diplomatic fashion, you better get nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. After all, it would be both embarrassing and dangerous to get caught without them, as Hussein has realized. If our goal is a well-armed world I suppose this is a good thing, but I don't look forward to the day when every government out there makes getting even a few nukes and ICBM's as a top priority. If our goal is reduction in nuclear weapons stockpiles we are setting some very bad precedents.

That is an interesting line of thought. I don't think we deal with Russia and China differently just because they have nuclear weapons. They are not violating UN resolutions on a daily basis. They are not firing at our planes while those planes are trying to enforce those sanctions. There is more to it than just nuclear weapons.

The bottom line is that Saddam is only scared of a complete invasion by the US. Will we actually have to do that? I hope not and I really don't think so, but the threat of it is the only thing that has made him budge an inch.

Quote

If we set the precedent that you can't get away with ignoring UN resolutions, and that the world government will back up its resolutions with force

Exactly. That is what we have got to do. The problem is that we have set a precedent in the past that we are a paper tiger, weak willed, and not willing to fight a sustained war. Until we shake that view we are negotiating from a position of relative weakness. Other countries are willing to do it. Vietnam was willing to do it. We've have got to get tougher mentally.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Iraq against war and not a threat to peace

Author By: Mohammed Aldouri New York Times

After so many years of fear from war, the threat of war and suffering, the people of Iraq and their Government in Baghdad are eager for peace. We have no intention of attacking anyone, now or in the future, with weapons of any kind. If we are attacked, we will surely defend ourselves with all means possible. But bear in mind that we have no nuclear or biological or chemical weapons, and we have no intention of acquiring them.
We are not asking the people of the United States or of any member state of the United Nations to trust in our word, but to send the weapons inspectors to our country to look wherever they wish unconditionally. This means unconditional access anywhere, including presidential sites in accordance with a 1998 signed agreement between Iraq and the United Nations – an agreement that ensures respect for Iraq’s sovereignty and allows for transparency in the work of the inspectors. We could never make this claim with such openness if we did not ourselves know there is nothing to be found.
Still, we continue to read statements by officials of the United States and the United Kingdom that it is not enough that Hans Blix, head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and his team of inspectors have unconditional access. They say this is because the Iraqi Government may be hiding weapons that will not be found, or is moving weapons from place to place, or is developing new weapons in roving vans or in underground locations.
The UN officials with whom our Government has worked on these matters know that these concerns have no foundation. In December 1998, when the UN weapons inspection team left Iraq on the orders of Richard Butler, the chief UN arms inspector at the time, it had exhausted all possibilities after seven years of repeatedly examining all possible sites;only small discrepancies existed.
It is now widely conceded that Iraq possesses no nuclear weapons and that we could not develop them without building facilities that could be spotted by satellite. Since 1999, we have allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit Iraq. If it wishes, it can inspect any building anywhere. The agency’s inspectors will find nothing untoward.
Scott Ritter, who led many UN inspections, has said that he questions whether Iraq possesses biological weapons. Ritter also has been on CNN in recent months explaining that his inspection team destroyed plants that could produce chemical weapons.
If these plants were reconstructed, Blix and his team would quickly find them out.
Building such weapons costs billions of dollars and requires enormous facilities and huge power sources. The idea that such projects could be moved around in trucks or stashed away in presidential palaces stretches the bounds of imagination.
It is my belief that the American people are not aware of this history because, in my opinion and the opinion of my government, no American political figure has been seriously interested in discussing these matters with our Government. The United Nations was created in 1945 to provide a forum for nations in conflict to come together to work out their disagreements. It was designed expressly for the purpose of making the use of force an absolute last resort.
For more than 11 years, the people of Iraq have suffered under United Nations economic sanctions, which have been kept in place largely by American influence. According to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, these sanctions have caused the death of more than 1.7 million of our citizens. The embargo has been so severe that we have been prevented from importing chemicals needed for our sewage, water and sanitation facilities.
At the same time, the last three American presidents have stated that these sanctions could not be lifted as long as our president, Saddam Hussein, remains the nation’s leader.
Iraq is not a threat to its neighbours. It certainly is not a threat to the United States or any of its interests in the Middle East. Once the United Nations inspection team comes back into my country and gets up to speed, I am confident that it will certify that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction – be they chemical, biological or nuclear.
Such certification, we hope, will remove the shadow of war and help restore peace between our nations.
(Mohammed Aldouri is the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations.)

this article taken from the bahrain tribune. i'm not saying i buy into it, but this is what is coming out over here.

Click Here For More

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[weatherman1977 0]

can you say propaganda???

[rgoper 0]

Quote

this article taken from the bahrain tribune. i'm not saying i buy into it, but this is what is coming out over here.

i'm sure this statement more than clarifies my position on this article. having said that, are you of the opinion we may well be doing the same thing to achieve our objectives? food for thought. personally, i wish the whole mess would just "go away"

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[weatherman1977 0]

I agree... Propaganda is a tool used on both sides, but come on. Who do you think is more brain washed?
Us or a country without freedom of the press. Look at the recent election of sadaam. 11mill votes? they call it an open election, but a little know fact is, there is no voting booth. Men with rifles watch over you as you cast your vote. Not to mention there was only one name on the ballot, and write-ins are not an option.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

It is now widely conceded that Iraq possesses no nuclear weapons and that we could not develop them without building facilities that could be spotted by satellite.

I don't guess this guy has seen the recent satellite photos showing new buildings in the places where we destroyed their old chemical and nuclear research facilities. Those are probably just baby food factories.

Quote

In December 1998, when the UN weapons inspection team left Iraq on the orders of Richard Butler, the chief UN arms inspector at the time, it had exhausted all possibilities after seven years of repeatedly examining all possible sites;only small discrepancies existed.

I love this! That is an interesting way of describing the situation when Butler left. Butler was completely frustrated with Iraq's lack of cooperation when he left. I guess it depends on your definition of "small discrepancies".

Quote

Iraq is not a threat to its neighbours.

I think Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would disagree with this. The Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti governments would shit bricks if we tried to pull out our Patriot Missile Batteries.

Quote

The United Nations was created in 1945 to provide a forum for nations in conflict to come together to work out their disagreements. It was designed expressly for the purpose of making the use of force an absolute last resort.

LOL, kind of like their invasion of Kuwait was a last resort and their constant badgering of our planes patroling the UN mandated No-fly zone is a last resort.

Quote

Such certification, we hope, will remove the shadow of war and help restore peace between our nations.

Aaaaaaaah..............lovers of peace to the end. [sniffle]brings a tear to my eye[/sniffle]

Thanks for the laugh. I needed that.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[rgoper 0]

if you'll notice, this article was written in the states.

Quote

Author By: Mohammed Aldouri New York Times

Bahrain is an island, not part of the UAE, in fact they are more "westenized" than any other middle eastern country, and a US tourists attraction at that. Bahrain does have "freedom of the press" as for how they (Iraq, which Bahrain is no part of) run their elections, i have no first hand knowlege of their election procedures. i still have a bad taste in my mouth from our own presidential election in the states. was it pure coincidence that jeb bush's state of florida was a factor? we need to "pull our heads out of the sand" elections have been "bought and paid for" in the states for years, no matter the number of names on the ballot. who do you think put JFK in office? (the very same people who took him out of office) and surely your not buying the "single shooter" story? re: JFK's assination. it's no wonder LBJ didn't want a second term. as for who is "more brain washed" to tell you the truth, i'm not sure, i believe half of what i see, and nothing of what i hear.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[weatherman1977 0]

as far as the single shooter theory... no, it was the mob. but on a different note.
We have a big problem in this country. Too many people that don't like it. Don't like the way it is run, don't like its polocies, don't like the sacrafices that come with freedom. Well to that, and to all the symapathizers out there, i say "GET OUT". Go find your perfect place where you can be a peace with everyone. Be everyones friend. Feel bad for everyone that has a cause. The JOHN WALKER LIHD's of the world.
Just get out, keep walking until you find it. I'll see you all when you get back and realize we have it good, and it is worth every drop of blood, and the gallons more that will be spilled in the future fighting for it.

[Muenkel 0]

Kenny,

You put up some really good arguments. Unfortunately, I think you're wasting your time. You see, there are ppl here who have a lot of clout around here because of their skydiving record.
I have yet to decipher if these people are simply anti-american or anti-Bush Administration.

I am beginning to think that if for some miracle, Pres. Bush was to come up with a way to feed all the poor in this country, they would find some way to criticize him.

_________________________________________
Chris