home ||| archives |||
contact
To become a contributing poster, send an email!
Friday, March 07, 2003
"Show me a part of the world that is secure in its peace and I will show you a strong or growing ties between local militaries and the U.S. military. Show me regions where major war is inconceivable and I will show you permanent U.S. military bases and long-term security alliances. Show me the strongest investment relationships in the global economy and I will show you two postwar military occupations that remade Europe and Japan following World War II." - Thomas PM Barnett, US Naval War College
1. You say Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and is evil enough to use them. If not during an American invasion of his country, then when? Have you calculated how many U.S. troops might die in such an attack? If not now, when? If not us, who? If we are going to rid this country of weapons of mass destruction which threaten us and our allies, by terrorism or otherwise, then we need to do it SOONER, not later. Why must we wait, and risk Iraq's nuclear program coming to a head (see North Korea)? We must act now, depose Saddam Hussein, and rid the world of a global menace. 2. Why, if North Korea has the capability to produce six nuclear warheads by mid-summer, are you letting their very reluctant neighbors take the lead in deterring them (as you announced tonight) while demanding that the U.S. take charge in confronting Saddam? Very simply put, South Korea is 32 times economically superior to its Northern Communist neighbor, and is quite capable of defending itself. We provide the money, the arms, and the munitions... South Korea has the manpower to defend itself, at this juncture. Don't forget, additionally, that we do have a very large presence in the Pacific. Additional long range bombers, for instance, have been deployed to Guam, to counter the North Korean threat.
We are taking care of Iraq because, quite frankly, nobody else appears to care that Iraq could be a future North Korea if not handled now. Nobody else seems concerned about the plight of Iraqi people under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. And nobody even remembers that it's been 12 long years since the cease-fire agreement ended the Gulf War - a truce that has for the entire remaining time been broken numerous times by Iraq, resolution after resolution. We are handling Iraq because it's time we finished what we started. 3. You praise the Iraqi people, say we have no quarrel with them, pledge to save them from the dictator and give them democracy. Would you tell us how many of them are likely to die in even the best invastion scenario? And how many civilians might die if Saddam, indeed, uses chemical weapons to defend himself? Take it from Iraqis who have fled their country and are speaking out - we can't come soon enough. Iraq must be freed; the Iraqi people are awaiting our help, and we had best be there to give it to them or perhaps forever lose their trust. In 1991, when the people were prepared to overthrow Hussein, we abandoned them and left them to be violently put down. I find this question interesting as it does not even infer the number of people ALREADY KILLED by Saddam Hussein, the numbers in the thousands, even millions. How many more must die at his hand? You can be sure of one thing.... they will continue to die at an alarming rate if we don't invade. 4. Why do you think Turkey's parliament voted against hosting U.S. troops after being offered such a large aid package, especially since they are on Iraq's border? Glad you asked. Turkey fears that a war could lead Kurds in northern Iraq to declare an independent state and in turn inspire Turkey's own Kurdish minority. That's why it took so much pressure to get a vote out of the Turkish parliament. Notwithstanding, the parliament DID produce a majority in favor of letting the US on its soil, but a kink in parliamentary procedure required a 60% majority. The number that abstained killed the majority, and the vote was rejected. Look for a second vote on the matter - I think there will be surprises on this front. 5. With the economy skaken and deficits climbing, how do you respond to critics who say you're ignoring domestic issues and the long-term economic security of this country by focusing so much of your time and resources on Iraq? Do you think they'll improve if we ignore the situation and let it fester? September 11 showed us all how important domestic security is to our economic security; it shook our foundations. How much worse it would be if a nuclear or chemical or biological weapon were detonated on our soil! 6. You say one major reason for taking this action is to protect Americans from terrorism. How do you respond to the warnings of CIA Director George Tenet and others that invading Iraq would in fact likely increase terrorism? This has been an argument that has been shot down dozens of times over the years. They used this during the Gulf War and the Afghanistan war. But what this war will really do is command respect from the international community and terrorists alike - you don't want to mess with us. Terrorists and rogue nations need to be kept fearful of our reprisals. Not only that, but freeing Iraq will strip the terrorist underworld of a likely source of materials for WMD. 7. Why have you threatened "retribution" against Mexico if it votes against our U.N. resolution? And do you think it is wise to warn that Mexicans could face the same reaction as the "backlash against the French" from our public (as you recently said) when this might be directed at some of the tens of millions of Hispanics living in the U.S.? That holds about as much water as a fear that there will be a backlash against the millions of people with French last names in the US... I'm not sure you understand what retribution means; I'm thinking it means, oh, maybe economic sanctions? 8. Rather than make us wait for a supplemental budget request -- after the war has been launched -- to tell us what it, and its aftermath, will cost, don't you think the American people (who will pay the bill) deserve to know the latest long-term estimates before the fact? Imagine the American people demanding to know the cost of World War II before we entered it, and you immediately realize the lunacy of this question. War, by experience, is foggy... it's very difficult to estimate the cost of any incursion of this size. However, we have been told that it will be quick, it will be short, and it will be devastating. By those parameters, it won't be expensive in American lives OR American dollars.... and we've borne the brunt of our armed forces many many times before. I wonder - have we ever doubted the cost of the invasion of Panama? How about Somalia? 9. Why did the U.S. edit the 12,000 page Iraqi weapons report (as recently revealed) to the U.N. Security Council, removing all names of U.S. companies that sold weapons materials to the Iraqis in the past? First, it must be pointed out that that allegation is unsubstantiated, and even if it is true, some of the reports have the unedited version going to additional members of the Security Council. I did a search for this story, and the only sites I found it on were left-wing-leaning propagandist sites like 'Democracy Now!'. Additionally, it must be pointed out that third parties like Syria and Libya may not be privy to NATO classified information. 10. Would you confirm or deny the reports this week, based on a leaked memo, that the U.S. bugged and otherwise spied on representatives of countries that are swing votes on the U.N. Security Council? Do you approve of such actions? On the surface, it looks bad. But this sort of thing happens all the time, so much so that it is almost considered routine."It is life," Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov told reporters at the United Nations. "It comes with the profession, with the job. I don't think I was surprised." "The strong powers are always spying on the small countries," said Spanish Ambassador Inocencio Arias. "What never happens is the small countries spying on the potent powers." I wouldn't doubt that Russia and China do it, among others. 11. You claimed tonight that Iraq has started producing new missiles -- but are these nothing more than less capable versions (fully permitted by the U.N.) of the missiles being destroyed now? First, Saddam is only destroying these missiles because they were discovered. Before then, Iraq denied any knowledge of even possessing such missiles. How can we trust them if they lied to us from the get-go? How many more undiscovered violations are they hiding, and how would we know? Second, missiles are only a tiny part of what is required to be destroyed. Even Hans Blix said that major compliance was necessary on Iraq's biological armaments. 12. How do you respond to columnist Thomas Friedman's statement that the "coalition of the willing" is actually a "coalition of the billing?" It's sad to have reached that point, for governments to blackmail the US government for their help. But we have so actively aided countries lesser than ours that the world takes it for granted that we remain the bulwark for freedom and prosperity in the world. Thank you, Bill Clinton, for that legacy. 13. Why is the U.S. threatening a non-U.N.-backed war if 59% of Americans do not support a U.S. invasion without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, according to a Feb. 24-26 USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll? It's not the public's decision - it's the commander in chief of the United States who makes that call. We don't have access to nearly the amount of intelligence and information he does, and what we see in the news is skewed, first of all. Second of all, it's incomplete.
I'd say one in three conversations wound up the same way, basically that 'America is the devil.' So I'd ask folks to think about the Marshall Plan a bit and get back to me." - Vince Vaughn
...From recent intelligence, we know that the Iraqi regime intends to declare and destroy only a portion of its banned al-Samoud inventory, and that it has in fact ordered for continued production of the missiles that you see being destroyed." - Colin Powell
