Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "The hindrance factor was due solely to the coalition of Arab states we were relying on during the Gulf War. Does it exist today?" I hate to have to tell you this, but the coalition to beat down Iraq in 2002 will be the same group of nations that coalesced to beat them down the last time. Same rules.
Re: "Tell me, have the Saudis been good allies to us this time around?" If the Saudis haven't been good allies to us this time, how do you think we're going to get them to help us with Iraq? And have you read what our European allies have publicly stated about an Iraqi adventure?
Re: "Did they do anything, in fact, besides supply most of the terrorists on 9/11? Do you think these facts will be brushed under the rug forever?" They've been given the option to clean up. As far as I know, they have. Certainly there were enough reports in the news detailing assistance that Saudi Arabia gave us.
Re: "Similarly, Saddam will be given the chance to abide by all the agreements he signed at the end of the Gulf War." If this were the case, we'd be seeing the threats already. The US just doesn't attack nations out of the blue like the Japanese did in 1941. The US always makes lots of diplomatic noise. But it hasn't.
The basic problem here is that we are a Democracy. We pretend that our foreign policy is legal and is based on giving the other guy a chance to respond to our (always reasonable) demands. If you watch a few Western movies you'll notice that the hero doesn't shoot the villians in the back without warning. This sort of attitude restricts our foreign policy. We always let it be known well in advance what we are going to do, just not exactly how we're going to do it.
The administration ran up some trial balloons late last year to see if there was much international support for another campaign against Iraq. The answer was that there was none. Since then, the US has toned down the speeches. It's obvious to me that there are no special plans to go into Iraq with large scale military force. It's possible that they're planning to kill Saddam, but that's would be about the limit.
Put this in comparison with the war in Afghanistan. Well before the US campaign began the administration was talking about how they were sure that Osama bin Laden was responsible and that the Taliban had better give him up immediately. The US is simply not making loud noises about Iraq.
Re: "Even without Saudi Arabia, we have Turkey ... Not the case:
Press Briefing with Senators Lieberman, McCain in Turkey
US Dept of State, January 4, 2002
...
SENATOR LIEBERMAN: Well, we had good exchanges with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. As you well know, Prime Minister Ecevit is going to the United States in a couple of weeks, and I'm sure these matters will be discussed. I think it's fair to say that the Prime Minister said to us, as he said publicly here in Turkey, that whether Saddam Hussein remains in power or not is a matter that's up to the Iraqi people and in that sense is of less consequence to the government of Turkey than the continued territorial integrity of Iraq.
...
usinfo.state.gov
Re: "... Bahrain, Kuwait ..." BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Re: "... de facto Kurdistan in the northern no fly zone." This is off limits because it would alienate Turkey, an ally of ours. For example, see:
Turkey: Worries Grow Over Possible U.S. Strikes Against Iraq
Jean-Christophe Peuch, Radio Free Europe, November 15, 2001
Reports that the U.S. may eventually turn its antiterror military campaign on Iraq is unnerving some in Turkey. The U.S. has not announced any plans to extend the military campaign to Iraq, but many in Turkey are convinced such a move is only a matter of time. Ankara says it is opposed to any renewed large-scale military operations against Baghdad, warning they could destabilize the region.
...
Ankara has opposed an armed Kurdish rebellion in its southeast for the past 20 years and fears unrest in northern Iraq's Kurdish provinces.
Ankara notably fears that granting any kind of territorial autonomy to Iraqi Kurds might profit the People's Democracy Party (HADEP), the only legal pro-Kurdish party in Turkey, or reignite full-scale war with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK.
...
Turkish foreign policy analyst Soylemez says, "You don't know who is going to replace Saddam. This we keep saying to the Americans. There is a difference in the views of the Turkish government and those of the U.S. administration [on this issue]. You remove Saddam, but then what is the alternative? There is no clear understanding on who's going to replace him because there is no visible opposition in Iraq. There is no chance for an opposition at the moment. So who's going to replace [Saddam]? Who's going to be next? Will that not bring more chaos in Iraq?"
...
rferl.org
Re: "... the southern no fly zone ..." Are you comparing this to the Northern Alliance?
Re: "... (probably) Jordan." In your dreams.
Re: "Russia ..." Russia will be in opposition to us on this, as they have repeatedly when we've punished Iraq. For example:
Russia leads cricicism of Iraq raids
CNN.com, February 17, 2001
cnn.com
IRAQ IS ALWAYS THE FIRST [AMERICA] BLAME[S]
Dmitry Litvinovich, Pravda, Novemeber 20, 2001
...
Everyone knows that Iraq is a country taking the top position on the list of those posing a potential threat to the United States. America’s obsession to convince the world community of Iraq’s vicious plans towards the civilized world has already become the talk of the town. If something bad happens anywhere, Saddam Hussein is a good guy to blame, a whipping boy better to say.
Donald Rumsfeld, the American Minister for Defense, joined the choir to blame Iraq.
...
Pay attention to the list of the countries that America suspects of developing weapons of mass destruction. These are all the countries with which the States does not have “friendly relations,” to put it mildly. You can make your judgement.
...
english.pravda.ru
IRAQ: STORM BREWING
Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY, Pravda, November 30, 2001
The British Foreign Ministry has already stated that there is no proven connection between Baghdad and the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. Berlin has warned against the impulse to find new targets and France considers an attack on Iraq “unnecessary”. The Arab league is peremptory in its response to this hypothesis: No! The response from Russia’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Igor Ivanov was “This is not the right moment to analyse different scenarios”.
...
From the Arab world, the Jordanian Foreign Ministry issued an official statement, which reads: “Jordan is against the use of force, all foreign interference in Iraqi questions and any military operation which will cause a raising of the conflict, desperation and very dangerous repercussions whose effects will surpass the region”.
...
english.pravda.ru
For other Prvada hits for "Iraq" see:
english.pravda.ru
english.pravda.ru
english.pravda.ru
english.pravda.ru
It doesn't appear to me that the Russians are lining up to punish Iraq at all.
Re: "... and Israel are not far off ..." In the Gulf War, with far better allied support than we're getting now, the US was forced to keep Israel off the table. This has not significantly changed.
Re "Iraqi battalions surrendered to camera crews the last time around; do you really think they would fight harder for Saddam this time?" I don't think they'll fight particularly hard, and in fact I think the US could march into Baghdad over the objections of all the neighboring countries, if it wanted to. But that's beside the point. The US doesn't operate in a diplomatic vacuum where it can do whatever it likes.
-- Carl |
