Saddam is purging Kirkuk at this very moment.

[Darth Wong]

One premise of mine is that because Hussein is a threat to Israel, he is a threat to the United States.

That is the dumbest fucking thing I've heard all day. Israel is a sovereign country, not the 51st state. If America stopped supporting them, there would be no connection.

[Axis Kast]

If American stopped supporting them, they would also be massacred.

Legitimacy of our ties to allies is a connection here. Abandon Israel now and we will be forced to move in later - on Saddam's time - once they are hit. Worse, we could face a nuclear exchange between Sharon and Hussein - or rather, by Sharon against Hussein. Not good.

[Axis Kast]

Iraq attacked Israel rather than Coalition ground targets during the Gulf War. He is apt to make similar calculations next time around.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If American stopped supporting them, they would also be massacred.

A State with the ability to produce its own armaments from air superiourity fighters to MBTs to combat rifles to two hundred nuclear devices and a full-population citizen muster which is far more motivated than in any other western country is hardly going to be massacred by any possible combination of Arab States.

Even if they used WMDs, the worst possible scenario would see the total annihilation of the whole of the Arab world - Egyptian civilization could be wiped out with a single nuke to the Aswan High Dam, and five more would exterminate the population of the KSA (albeit along with 20 conventional air raids). That leaves 194 other nukes for the rest of the Arab World. No Arab nation-state would press a nuclear attack against that kind of retaliatory response.

[Colonel Olrik]

If American stopped supporting them, they would also be massacred.

A State with the ability to produce its own armaments from air superiourity fighters to MBTs to combat rifles to two hundred nuclear devices and a full-population citizen muster which is far more motivated than in any other western country is hardly going to be massacred by any possible combination of Arab States.

Even if they used WMDs, the worst possible scenario would see the total annihilation of the whole of the Arab world - Egyptian civilization could be wiped out with a single nuke to the Aswan High Dam, and five more would exterminate the population of the KSA (albeit along with 20 conventional air raids). That leaves 194 other nukes for the rest of the Arab World. No Arab nation-state would press a nuclear attack against that kind of retaliatory response.

Shhh, Duchess, don't break his heart. He thinks he's on a great debate against the naive forces of the world, and that you're his ally.

Don't disrupt his fairy tale world with hard facts.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Iraq attacked Israel rather than Coalition ground targets during the Gulf War. He is apt to make similar calculations next time around.

Um, its kind of hard to attack ground targets with Scuds. They are more of a harrasment weapon. Besides, he did attack the coalition on the ground. Khafji was proof of that.

[Axis Kast]

I'm wary of a larger Jihad. If sufficient, the uprising could close down important logistical elements and tie down huge numbers of troops.

I also fear that Hussein will risk abetting an attack on Israel under the assumption he won't be discovered to have become involved. Moreover, even if the Israelis plaster Baghdad - unlikely, given that they can target strictly military targets more easily and with less repercusion -, Hussein himself would not be in any actual danger save from assassination. And this would force us to enter the area anyway. Why wait for that kind of scenario?

[Axis Kast]

Um, its kind of hard to attack ground targets with Scuds. They are more of a harrasment weapon. Besides, he did attack the coalition on the ground. Khafji was proof of that.

Depots, etc.

[Dahak]

Um, its kind of hard to attack ground targets with Scuds. They are more of a harrasment weapon. Besides, he did attack the coalition on the ground. Khafji was proof of that.

Depots, etc.

Oh yes, SCUDs were oh-so precise...

[Admiral Piett]

"Freedom does not truly exist in Western Europe - It is a pretense allowed by the bureaucrats, a farce given to appease the masses, like the Roman Emperors letting the Senate continue to meet, addressing it respectfully, and sending all legislation through it.

Interesting,so basically I do not live in a free country because I do not have a rifle to shoot my prime minister in the back.This is rather funny.
Marina,despite your admiration for Pinochet,you are obviously totally clueless about dictatorships works.
Dictatorships do not work in that way.Dictatorships have always some amount of popular support.The majority of the population typically does not give a damn shit either way,as the ordinary person wants to live its life.Only a minority oppose the dictator.
That minority would have to face the state apparatus AND that part of the population which is supportive of the regime.
The rebels can draw militias out from the population? The government can play at that game too.
If the regime is so unpopular that the great majority of the population would take the arms against it,then this means the regime has run out of political gas.Its days are counted,regardless of how many weapons are around.
The soviet leaders,the argentina junta and not only they,learned this in the hard way.
Your fantasy scenario about the US population unanimously rebelling against an evil dictator basing himself only on the military is just a delusion.
If a dictatorship will ever arise in Washigton DC,your average citizen will remain on the armchair watching happily/indifferently the TV propaganda broadcast showing the US Army going after the few partisans in the woods while the anchorman makes the rebels look like Al Quaeda.
Otherwise a dictatorship will not arise in first place,lacking the political climate for it to establish itself and to endure.
And quite frankly your politicians,not your generals,are the main threat to the american democracy,if a threat exists which probably is not the case.
Your generals marching over the capital is a delusion.
Mr Ashcroft churning out Patriot acts is a reality.

[Darth Wong]

I'm wary of a larger Jihad. If sufficient, the uprising could close down important logistical elements and tie down huge numbers of troops.

I also fear that Hussein will risk abetting an attack on Israel under the assumption he won't be discovered to have become involved.

Oh, right. No one will notice the coincidence. Doesn't it occur to you that the close ties between America and Israel are what facilitates his use of Israel as a distraction from his problems with America? Or is that too much for your underdeveloped grey matter to handle?

You claimed that Israel would be annihilated by Arab states without American support, and as with all of your mistakes and distortions, you simply change the subject without admitting error when your claims are shown to be complete and utter bullshit. You do not debate; you simply rant. There is a difference.

[Axis Kast]

Oh, I understand that it facilitates his ability to focus on Israel. That does not mean that Israel is worthless to us however. Far from it. The ties we enjoy in terms of intelligence and as a potential client in arms are, from my point of view, well worth it.

And as for Israel, I was proven wrong. It happens. Not that I don't think a mass uprising could cause massive damage and more or less oblige Israel to condemn itself to total isolation and constant war.

[MKSheppard]

If a dictatorship will ever arise in Washigton DC,your average citizen will remain on the armchair watching happily/indifferently the TV propaganda broadcast showing the US Army going after the few partisans in the woods while the anchorman makes the rebels look like Al Quaeda.

Even that might be problematic.

http://www.mosbymuseum.org/

John Singleton Mosby, buried in the cemetery behind my dad's backyard in
Warrenton, Virginia.

He raised holy hell for the Union troops in that area of Virginia, leading
to that part being known as Mosby's Confederacy.

Counter Insurgency, or COIN, is a very hard task, even with
a professional army.

[Sea Skimmer]

If American stopped supporting them, they would also be massacred.

No actually. It will simply make it more likely that Israel will have to resort to its plentiful nuclear option. Thats somthing the US would rather not see happen.

[Admiral Piett]

He raised holy hell for the Union troops in that area of Virginia, leading
to that part being known as Mosby's Confederacy.

Yes, we had similar problems after the wars of indipendence.Neverthless at the end rebels were stamped out,albeit costly.
The point is that a dictatorship requires a certain political climate to develop and to go on.
The bolt out the blue dictator hated by everyone against which the population will unanimously take the arms is a myth.

[MKSheppard]

Yes, we had similar problems after the wars of indipendence.Neverthless at the end rebels were stamped out,albeit costly.

You had wars of independence?

Elaborate more, where do you live? (I forget)

*loads up google for quick n dirty history lesson*

[Axis Kast]

No actually. It will simply make it more likely that Israel will have to resort to its plentiful nuclear option. Thats somthing the US would rather not see happen.

If it does, it's more or less a loss for all involved. We're talking about huge uprisings and terrorist attacks on a massive scale.

[Axis Kast]

As for the al-Qaeda link ...

Spain Links Suspect in 9/11 Plot to Baghdad

David Rose
Sunday March 16, 2003
The Observer

An alleged terrorist accused of helping the 11 September conspirators was invited to a party by the Iraqi ambassador to Spain under his al-Qaeda nom de guerre, according to documents seized by Spanish investigators.
Yusuf Galan, who was photographed being trained at a camp run by Osama bin Laden, is now in jail, awaiting trial in Madrid. The indictment against him, drawn up by investigating judge Baltasar Garzon, claims he was 'directly involved with the preparation and carrying out of the attacks ... by the suicide pilots on 11 September'.

Evidence of Galan's links with Iraqi government officials came to light only recently, as investigators pored through more than 40,000 pages of documents seized in raids at the homes of Galan and seven alleged co-conspirators. The Spanish authorities have supplied copies to lawyers in America, and this week the documents will form part of a dossier to be filed in a federal court in Washington, claiming damages of approximately $100 billion on behalf of more than 2,500 11 September victims.

The lawsuit lists Saddam's government in Iraq as one of its principal defendants, claiming it provided 'material support' to the al-Qaeda terrorists. Under US law, the victims' families do not have to prove active direction or involvement in the details of the 9/11 conspiracy by Iraq, only that Saddam's regime gave al-Qaeda more general assistance in the knowledge that it was planning to attack American targets.

Although some Western intelligence officials have expressed scepticism about an al-Qaeda-Iraq link, in recent months George Tenet, the Director of the CIA, has made increasingly strong statements alleging such a connection. In Congressional testimony last month, he said that Iraq had co-operated with al-Qaeda for 10 years, and that it had trained al-Qaeda members in bombmaking and the use of chemical and biological weapons. In an apparent attempt to refute the sceptics, he said this information 'comes from reliable sources'.

The evidence in support of the 9/11 damages claim cites several examples of this alleged co-operation. They include the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak near Baghdad, where former Iraqi intelligence brigadier Jamal al-Qurairy has said that non-Iraqi Islamic radicals were trained to hijack aircraft using knives.

It also includes a new affirmation by the Czech government that Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 plotters, met an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ibrahim al-Ani, in Prague in April 2001. Some US officials have suggested this meeting did not happen. But in a signed statement dated 24 February, 2003, Hynek Kmonicek, the Czech ambassador to the UN, says his government 'can confirm that during the stay of Mohamed Atta ... there was contact with Mr al-Ani, who was on 22 April, 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities not compatible with his diplomatic status [the usual euphemism for spying]'. Garzon's indictment says Galan was part of a cell which organized bank robberies on behalf of al-Qaeda, and which had supported the group around Atta financially and logistically.

[Posbi]

Well, I'll try to comment on the original article - even though I'm sure I've forgotten half of it after reading seven pages of debate and the "Bash Marina, Hit Axis Kast"-game.

As the original point seems to be Saddam Hussein's forces ethnically cleasing the region of Kirkuk, it all depends how you see "ethnical cleansing".
Personally, I don't see any indications of an ethnic cleansing process going on down there right now. It is absolutely logical that the Kurish minority is under the tough boot of the Iraqi secret police. They recieve the very harsh version of what, in essence, is also possible in democratic nations like, say, Germany.
Mind, by far not to such an extent. Our constitutional services have the orders and obligation to observe any groups that work against the current constitution, not the government. If said services find proof that an organisation is employing anti-constitutional methods and/or is aimed at replacing the existing VDGO ("free democratic basic order"), the Constitutional Security Service, the Verfassungsschutz, can come down on them hard with the help of the regular police.

Mind, this is all within the normal democratic ruleset. Yet, basically, if you bring it to the smallest common point, it is essentially not very different from what the Iraqi secret police does. Whereas a democratic and liberal nation just employs a passive stance towards such groups that (might) endanger the existing order, dictatorical regimes of course use open force to surpress civil unrest. That an ethnic group that has rebelled with the use of arms against his rule won't recieve a nice treatment by someone like Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath regime is as such totally understandable. In a democratic environment such measures would be far more peaceful and regulated, yet they would also obviously exist (because they do).

Coming back to the original point after this excursion, what we see here is, at least in my opinion, no ethnic cleansing. Harsh treatment, unjust treatment, so much is for sure, but hardly ethnic cleansing in the sense we have come used to it during the past fifteen years. None of those people are per se forced by Saddam's forces to leave their homes. That they are looked upon with suspicion and are treated like crap is symptomous for an oriental despotist regime when you're not part of the ruling class, but those people aren't forced to leave, which is the major point of the arguement. Treated like crap, but not forced.
Granted, that might in somebody's eyes be a thin line, but an existing one.


If one says ethnic cleansing, what springs to my mind is the picture of Bosnia-Herzegovina, where people were forced by the means of arms to leave behind what was theirs and pack things in two minutes or otherwise to be shot by the ravaging Tschetniks or various ethnic militias. Here, ethnic cleansing was also conducted by attempted genocide, as far as we know by all involved parties.

Whereas I have to state -call me a bastard for it (I won't care)- that in the case of the Balkans I am almost a supporter of the outcome of ethnic cleansing. Mind, not it's most brutal methods, but of it's result. Because let's face it and be realist: if the international community wouldn't have stepped in the first Balkan War would've ended with Herzegovina being split between two almost equally powerful nations, Croatia on the one side and the Yugoslavian remnant on the other side. The Bosnians (let's just call them like that, I mean the Bosnian muslims when I say that) would've suffered the fate of forced or voluntary deportation (read: seeking asylum).

That is, of course, neither morally nor under the humanitarian aspect a desirable outcom, yet it would've meant a strong stabilization of teh whole region under the dual reign of either Serbia or Croatia. The situation as we have created in in reality is far from being perfect. Catastrophically unstable comes closer to a real consideration of the problem. Not only do we still have the artificial contruct of Bosnia with its many totally insufficient enclaves, we have also destabilized the "main" local power greatly, thus allowing the Kosova War, and laying the foundation for Great-Albanian scemes that would've been impossible to even dream about under the aegis of two culturally dominant christian states, the catholic Croats and the orthodox Serbs.
For moral reasons we have again given way to future problems that we might not be able to control. The Balkans are still the powderkeg they have been, just with the difference that by now our men are in the shooting line, and the difference that we are observing the creation of a muslim bastion on European soil. That is worrying, and should have never happened in the first place. "Nations are the coldest of all Monsters". I believe Nietzsche said that, and he was right. Sadly, nations seem to forget that maxime of acting more and more often lately.


*looks up* Damn, I don't believe I ever wrote that much at SD.net before.

Anyways, the mass exodus of the Kurds isn't ethnic cleansing, it's using common sense on their side. In the very likely case of war those people will be the prime targets for interal retribution by the loyalist groups, and considering they are living in an very hot coming warzone, I can't see how using their sense of survival is "ethnic cleansing". The majority of the populace fleeing a coming warzone is not limited to certain ethnicies either.

So, fine, I've reached the point where I can hardly remember the thread, so I stop here. If wanted I will comment on that whole Schroeder/Chirac thing, if not, fine for me too.

[Admiral Piett]

You had wars of independence?

Elaborate more, where do you live? (I forget)

*loads up google for quick n dirty history lesson*

Italy
Indipendence from the austro-hungarian empire.Although only a portion of the country was under its rule it was the main problem with the unification.
Taking over the rest of the country from the various local kingdoms was a cakewalk.The hard part came after.In some regions some were not exactly,
let's say,happy with the new rule.There was guerilla warfare.Stamping it out
with an army of conscripts in a ground which favored the rebels was not exactly a nice job.But at the end it was accomplished,although with losses that made all the previous wars look like small skirmishes.

Back to the point.
A dictatorship does not come out from nothing.Mussolini and Hitler did not take power in a bolt out the blue situation.The could take power because there was a climate favorable to what they were doing.They had a non small consensus and could count on a wide zone of indifference.
And they managed to mantain it for long.
If a dictatorship arose in Washington DC this would mean that there would be a climate that favored such a move.You will not see someone just sitting down in the Oval office,starting to laugh maniacally and behaving like a clichè tyrant.It does not work in that way.
Such a person would not be able to gain power,much less mantaining it for much time.
Rather he will be someone that will promise order in a chaotic situation.
Or something in that style.Many will cheer him like the savior of the homeland,the most will not care.And he will make everything necessary to keep it in that way.There are a lot ways to accomplish that.Find a social group to blame,wage small victorious wars abroad in order to exploit patriotism for internal cohesion purpose,propaganda etc.
How many will really take the arms against a government which would have at its disposal the control of a powerful repressive apparatus,the most powerful military on earth, a non trivial active popular support and while the bulk of the population which will not care much?
Small hint,those who tried to resist the unification are remebered as bandits (which they actually were for the most part in anyway) in a footnote in the history books.Confronted by the military and militias drawn out from sectors of the population supportive of the government they were hunted down and destroyed (or more precisely reduced to a bunch of depoliticized bandits).It cost a lot in body bags of course,but the government managed to do it.And it was not even dictatorship, just a constituational monarchy.
A modern dictator cannot remain in power for long relying only on the security apparatus or a professional military against the population.When the soviet system lost most of its internal support,it collapsed.And it did not happen because the citizens were in front of the Kremlin weilding assault rifles.When the the argentinian military junta lost its popular support after the disaster at the Falkland it had to leave the power.Again not in front of assault rifles weilding mob.
When the gas of political legitimation runs out and the population is all hostile there is little that holds.
No military or secret police will keep you afloat for long,indipendently from the number of weapons in the hands of the population.
If you have the population is against you you cannot hold for long.An armed insurrection will just make the inevitable happen faster.
On the other hand if you have a level of popular support,active and passive,enough to sustain the dictatorship in the long term then you have also good chances of wiping out the "terrorists".

[Admiral Piett]

Although some Western intelligence officials have expressed scepticism about an al-Qaeda-Iraq link, in recent months George Tenet, the Director of the CIA, has made increasingly strong statements alleging such a connection. In Congressional testimony last month, he said that Iraq had co-operated with al-Qaeda for 10 years, and that it had trained al-Qaeda members in bombmaking and the use of chemical and biological weapons. In an apparent attempt to refute the sceptics, he said this information 'comes from reliable sources'.

I hope that it is more reliable than the pre 1991 degree thesis and the material downloaded from internet that Tony Blair used to cobble together the dossier on the current iraqi WMD arsenal

The evidence in support of the 9/11 damages claim cites several examples of this alleged co-operation. They include the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak near Baghdad, where former Iraqi intelligence brigadier Jamal al-Qurairy has said that non-Iraqi Islamic radicals were trained to hijack aircraft using knives.

Mmmmm,hijacking aircraft using knives.This sounds soooo much the classical type of stuff that a defector anxious to say what he knows his masters would like to hear would tell.

[Master of Ossus]

If American stopped supporting them, they would also be massacred.

I hardly see that Israel is under any real danger from Arab states, right now. Though the Arabs are obviously not happy with the State of Israel, there isn't a lot that they can do about it. Israel is more powerful than all of them are.

Iraq attacked Israel rather than Coalition ground targets during the Gulf War. He is apt to make similar calculations next time around.

SCUD missiles are not accurate enough to target troops, but they ARE accurate enough to target metropolitan areas and cities. Those missiles were of no serious threat to the Coalition forces in the Gulf, unless loaded with WoMD warheads.

[Admiral Piett]

Also mr Axis,maybe you do not know,the UK hosts a non small number of islamofascists.Several Al Quaeda members captured or killed in Afghanistan were british citizens.I guess you are planning to bomb London as well.

[Axis Kast]

Israel is capable of mounting a strong conventional defense, but what about internal strife? A series of severe terrorist attacks combined with widespread violent uprising could divert important numbers of troops and challenge Israel to blacken its image even moreso by attempting to quell the insurgence through force. Any future deployment against Israel by the Arab world will involved a timed Palestinian uprising of huge proportions.

And once Israel uses nuclear weapons, it opens a terrible Pandora’s Box. If we assume they will only be fired in the case of immanent destruction or a terrorist attack responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, their use signals desperation – and an end to contact with civilized world as well as the beginning of even more pronounced violence.

SCUD missiles are not accurate enough to target troops, but they ARE accurate enough to target metropolitan areas and cities. Those missiles were of no serious threat to the Coalition forces in the Gulf, unless loaded with WoMD warheads.

Some American military bases of the time were as large as small cities in scope.

Also mr Axis,maybe you do not know,the UK hosts a non small number of islamofascists.Several Al Quaeda members captured or killed in Afghanistan were british citizens.I guess you are planning to bomb London as well.

A poor leap of judgement and you know it. This is about Saddam Hussein, not the United Kingdom. Iraqis are already reported to be in contact with al-Qaeda operatives (the Czechs and Spaniards certainly agree), and money from Baghdad is clearly funneled to HAMAS. Iraq is a state in support of terror and the most easily-toppled of any other in the Persian Gulf. The threat posed by Saddam is best handled militarily.

Mmmmm,hijacking aircraft using knives.This sounds soooo much the classical type of stuff that a defector anxious to say what he knows his masters would like to hear would tell.

Perhaps you feel yourself in a position to deny these reports or question their validity. In this circumstance, as an American citizen, I do not.

[Andrew J.]

Israel is capable of mounting a strong conventional defense, but what about internal strife? A series of severe terrorist attacks combined with widespread violent uprising could divert important numbers of troops and challenge Israel to blacken its image even moreso by attempting to quell the insurgence through force. Any future deployment against Israel by the Arab world will involved a timed Palestinian uprising of huge proportions.

I think that if Israel were to find itself in a situation where it would be necessary to destroy its Arab neigbors with WMD, Palestine would probably be the first to go.