BonosSaint said:
Okay, Sting. I'll give you a listen.
1. Was Hussein really a significant danger outside his own country considering the number of surveillance planes watching
and the amount of containment.
2. What kind of weaponry did he have and was it any more
than any other country would have to maintain its self-defense.
3. When was the last time he crossed the borders into another country? And if the conservatives can make the argument that the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11 prove that the war on terror is working, can't the same argument be made that since he had not left his borders, the surveillance and other containment strategies were working?
4. What proof do we have that the Iraqi armies are well-trained?
And when we do leave, whose interests will they serve? (I only ask because an army is there to serve at the will of the power structure and we do have a history of providing training and weapons in situations that subsequently blow up in our face. I'm not saying that it will, but that we do have a history of lack of foresight beyond the immediate advantage.)
5 Is the general infrastructure in better shape now than before the invasion? If so, please provide objective documentation.
6. I too was encouraged by the eagerness of the Iraqis to participate in the elections. Will that eagerness persist if a Constitution is drafted that gives certain factions in Iraq considerably less rights than they might have had under the old regime? Will they take heart in symbolic freedom, symbolic democracy if the reality becomes somewhat less than that for them?
7. Did we drop the ball on Bin Laden? Or has he become a nonissue to you? Serious question, as these all are.
8. At this point, are we in Iraq to serve Iraqi interests or American interests? The only advantage we had in Iraq before
all this was that Iraq was a secular government, which in a sense isolated it from much of the theocracy driven Middle East. If we end up with an Islamic republic of some sort, do we create a little bastion of democracy in the Middle East or a budding Iraq in ten years much more in line with Iranian interests than our own? I'm not saying that will happen and it may not due to the differing factions there, but if it does, did we make a mistake by making it ripe for terrorist propaganda?
Please provide new answers to these. I've read your posts very closely and will take your answers more seriously if I do not detect Administrationspeak.
1. Absolutely! Saddam had a military force of over 400,000 soldiers backed up by nearly 3,000 tanks, over 2,000 artillery pieces, 400 combat aircraft, several hundred combat helicopters, and several thousand other armored vehicles. In addition, Saddam had strong Ballistic missile program and had failed to verifiably disarm of over 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 500 pounds of nerve gas and over 20,000 bio/chem capable artillery shells.
Realize, it only took Saddam 12 hours to completely take over Kuwait with 40,000 troops and 600 tanks back in 1990. In 2002, Kuwait's total military force which was very small in 1990 was the same in 2002. Added to it were about 3,000 US personal, part of 1 US mechanized brigade, with a little over 100 tanks. The US presence in Saudi Arabia was also small numbering about 4,000 in total.
The containment force was designed to stop those trying to break the sanctions or the weapons embargo, they were certainly not large enough by themselves to stop a determined invasion by Saddam. Basing large numbers of US troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia over an extended period of time(years or decades) was politically impossible at the time.
In any invasion senerio, Saddam would only need to advance as little as 20 miles across the Iraq/Kuwait border and 20 miles across the Iraq/Saudi Arabia border to cause major damage to the planets energy supply.
As it was, sanctions and the weapons embargo had totally broken down by the end of 2002 and Saddam had already smuggled Billions of dollars of unknown goods across Iraq's borders. Faced with Iraq's still rather large military, Saddam's refusal to verifiably disarm of all WMD, and the end of full proof sanctions and weapons embargo to insure that Saddam could not get his hands on new conventional or WMD weapons, invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam was a long over due necessity.
2. Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, over 500 pounds of Sarin Gas and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells. Saddam had the largest mechanized force in the region and was in far closer proximity with that force to the vital energy reserves of the world than any other country. Iraq's Armored/Mechanized forces were twice the size of Iran's at the time and had a higher ratio of modern equipment to older equipment. Saddam also had an unknown quantity of Balistic Missiles.
The important thing to remember in respect to Saddam's capabilities is that he had used them all in the past unlike most other countries in the region. The biggest problem with Saddam was not necessarily his capabilities but his willingness to use those capabiliities in strange and unpredictable ways. Saddam's invasions and attacks on Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel all came as a surprise to nearly all experts attempting to predict his next moves.
Saddam had far more military strength than was needed to simply defend Iraq's borders. He had an incredible offensive capability vs. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and even Iran.
3. Iraqi agents and other forces had been going Across Iraq's border engaged in smuggling of unknown goods in violation of UN sanctions and the weapons embargo for years. In regards to a major invasion, Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD as well as meeting other requirements of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire showed that Saddam's behavior had not changed and it was only a matter of time before Saddam would strike again. The United States and its allies failed to predict the invasion of Iran in 1980, and they failed to predict Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 as well as other attacks. In light of these facts, it would have been a serious mistake to presume that Saddam would not strike again. Saddam still had the capability, was now nearly free of sanctions and the weapons embargo, and had a previous kind of behavior which suggested he would indeed strike again. These were the reasons why the United Nations required Saddam to verifiably disarm of all WMD, or face renewed military action back in 1991. Up until 1997-1998, Saddam somewhat cooperated, but never completely. In 1998, UN inspectors were forced to leave and never allowed to return.
That terrorist have been trying to attack the United States since 9/11 is a well known fact, as well as the fact that they have been unsuccessful. What Saddam's next move in the Persian Gulf would be was unknown, but the international community could not risk non-compliance with the UN resolutions(covering all disarmament issues, sanctions, embargo, and issues in regards to the aftermath of Saddam's brutal destruction of Kuwait in 1991) as this would put the region and world in an intolerable security situation.
4. I disagree that the US has a serious history of providing weapons to people that later blow up in our face, especially if your refering to Afghanistan. But thats a another issue.
The Iraqi Army currently has 10 Battalions that are used interchangably with Marine and Army Battalions. They have performed exceptionally well in combat all over the country and in many ways have capabilities that the US Army and US Marine Corp do not because they all know the language and culture of the country. There are another 90 Battalions that have various different levels of training and are still trying to achieve the elite training level of those first 10 Battalions. One year ago, the Iraqi army only had ONE Battalion and it was judged to be not ready for combat. The Iraqi Army serves the interest of the Iraqi government and will continue to do that when the United States leaves.
5. The answer to this question is yes and no. The four Sunni provinces where the insurgency rages may actually have worse infrastructure than they did prior to the war in some area's. Most of the other 14 provinces have been allowed to improve because they are neither held under the tight repressive grip of Saddam because they are Shiate or Kurd, nor are their daily lives disrupted by insurgency nearly all of which occurs in the four Sunni provinces. I'll try to come up with some GDP estimates for the country as whole as well as the energy situation. You have to remember though that the most prosperous area's in Iraq prior to the war were where Saddam's Sunni tribes lived and these have been hit the hardest by the insurgent/terrorist movement. The provinces in the South have always been much poorer and some of the area has actually never at any time in history had running water or electricity.
What is definitely true is that most of the money devoted to Economic development in Iraq has yet to be spent. Part of the problem of course is the rather difficult security problem in the North Western part of the country.
6. They know if they don't participate they will get NOTHING. This is the lesson the Sunni's are learning the hard way and registration in Sunni area's to vote in both the referendum on the constitution and the new elections for a permanent government in December are steadily increasing.
7. I definitely do not think the US or the coalition has dropped the ball on Bin Ladin. There may have been some tactical mistakes made in catching him at particular times, but its still unknown if capture would have resulted had there not been any mistakes. Finding one man is very difficult. Just think about Eric Rudolph, the 96' Olympic bomber and how long he was able to evade capture right here in the United States. If one only counts from 9/11, Rudolph still has Bin Ladin beat as far as the number of years he was on the run.
More importantly, intercepted communication between Bin Ladin and Al Zarqawi in Iraq suggest that Bin Ladin no longer has the ability to plan and support terrorist attacks. One intercepted communication revealed Bin Ladin asking Al Zarqawi to try to put together attacks in European capitals and the United States, a bit strange to ask of a person who is so heavily involved in Iraq's insurgency has nearly been captured twice. It sound rather desperate. But then again, such intercepted communication could be Al Quada attempts at disinformation.
8. I would take a theocracy run government in Iraq any day over Saddam's regime. Just compare what Saddam did over the past 25 years to any of the theocratic governments in the Persian Gulf and you'll see what I mean. I would hope that a true theocracy would not develop in Iraq and I don't think it will, but even if it does, it will still be better than having Saddam's regime in power.
