Chuck Ryan and others made OT comments that I generally
agree with (and will probably continue to have private
thread arguments about)...  I'm trying to make it a
personal policy to do no more than one "OT" post or
reply per month to 3000-L if that;  I'll call this one
Sept:

>> I think it extremely unlikely he would use them,
>> because he would be obliterated if he did.
>>
>> What targets do you think he would use them against?
>
> Israel of course, other targets depending on his
> delivery systems.
>
> You honestly think that if he moved against his
> neighbors and we stopped him that he would not use
> them?
>
> I would not be suprised as our attack draws closer to
> see Saddam attack Israel with some form of chemical or
> biological weapon to goad them into a response in the
> hope that the other Arab nations will side with them
> against both Israel and the US.

Saddam is one of the most ruthless dictators to come to
power in a long time;  right up there with Hitler, Mao,
and Stalin;  he just hasn't had the time and opportunity
yet to murder as many innocent people as his infamous
predecessors..  but he's working on it...  But he's also
crafty (supposedly has a near-photographic memory).
Saddam's over-riding priorities are his own survival
and aggrandizement (those two tendencies appear to be
in serious conflict; probably fatally so (example:  He
invaded Kuwait when Iraq was maybe only 9 - 18 months
away from having a functioning crude nuke) ).

As Chuck noted and many Mideast experts have also said,
if Saddam sees he is about to go down there is a very
real possibility that at the end he will try and fire
some of his few remaining Scuds at Israel with whatever
chemical or biological warheads he can still assemble.
But the Government of Israel is the strongest supporter
of moving quickly against Saddam.  Why, do you suppose ?
.. Because as National Security Advisor Condi Rice and
other senior US government officials have I think quite
reasonably been saying:  It's not gonna get better or
easier by waiting;  it will just get worse.  The big
risk to the US and the rest of the world is not that
Saddam will claim credit for executing a "Sum of All
Fears" scenario in a major US city:  He's not gonna do
that because he knows it would be all over.  It's that
if left in place he will secretly give NBC WMD to Al
Qaeda or etc. and let *them* take credit for it.  Don't
underestimate this guy's thirst for revenge for the
defeat (as far as it went) in the 1991 Gulf War.

Was a good interview with former CIA Director Jim Woolsey
last weekend.  He (and others) have noted that Iraq is in
gross violation of 16 UN resolutions that followed the
1991 Gulf War especially the inspections regime;  of the
cease fire agreement that his generals signed on his
behalf;  tried to murder the first President Bush in
Kuwait;  and continues to violate the no-fly zone rules
by routinely "painting" coalition aircraft with fire
control radar and occasionally firing SAMs at them; i.e:
continuing acts of war.  Given the circumstances, if the
UN can't authorize moving against Saddam after 11 years
of that litany, they've lost all credibility...  And in
fact developments of the last few days are IMO positive;
since President Bush spoke at the UN:  The Russian and
French initial reaction was guardedly positive; and just
yesterday the Saudi Foreign Minister said that if there
was a UN resolution authorizing force that they would
allow us to use the bases we built in their country
(MAJOR change).  China is IMO the remaining question.  I
don't know if they will veto a strong resolution on Iraq
or not.  I'm going to guess not, but I've been wrong
before and undoubtedly will be wrong again.  US Congress
will approve a pretty broad resolution supporting the
President before they go off to solicit votes in a couple
weeks.  Stand by.

Just like in Afghaistan, if Saddam is removed the biggest
"gainers" in the long run will be millions of average and
long-suffering people in Iraq.  There are a lot of things
that can go wrong.  But as many have said:  The risks of
doing nothing significantly outweigh the risks of doing
something.   IMO that's the bottom line.  I think the
UN will probably in the end manage to summon just barely
enough backbone to support a final inspections resolution
that has real teeth and a short fuse.  Saddam may seem
to agree at first, but will probably fairly quickly put
up roadblocks.  And then he will shortly thereafter be
history, one way or the other;  hopefully without WMD
getting into the hands of terrorists.


Final footnote: WRT to countries ignoring UN resolutions,
I got private email saying that Israel has ignored a
number of UN resolutions for years too (true), and has
not been subject to UN force to implement same;  i.e:
Double standard.  I'm NOT going to get into a back-and-
forth on 3000-L about that;  I'll just admit the real
world is a messy and complicated place...  and say that
IMO the history of Israel and UN resolutions is not
nearly in the same league as Saddam.  If you read the
full text of UNSC Resolution 242, non-binding General
Assembly Res. 194, and a host of others, you can draw
your own conclusions.  There is enough argument about
just the core of 242 to keep international lawyers busy
for years;  i.e.:
"...  application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories
occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and
acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political
independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace
within
secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; ..."
Note the words "both" and "secure and recognized".
Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, etc. still call and work for
the effective destruction of the State of Israel. While
I agree Arial Sharon is not the right person to make
peace from the Israeli side, no way is the long-standing
and continuing violence in that part of the world
completely Israel's fault.  In the long run I think the
chances for a reasonably fair settlement of the "Mideast
problem" are BETTER if Saddam is gone:  Arafat's cabinet
just resigned;  and maybe Sharon will lose the next
election if Israeli voters see a dimished threat in the
region in a post-Saddam era (at least Israeli citizens
have a right to vote in free elections).

Ken Sletten

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *