December 15, 2003

STAY OUTTA MY ROOM

In custody, Saddam explains his defiance of the UN:

Saddam was also asked whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. "No, of course not," he replied, according to the official, "the U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us." The interrogator continued along this line, said the official, asking: "if you had no weapons of mass destruction then why not let the U.N. inspectors into your facilities?” Saddam’s reply: "We didn't want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy."

So he provoked a war ... over personal space issues?

UPDATE. Here’s more from Saddam the Believable. Strange how only the WMD quote is getting much attention:

Hussein insisted the chemical weapons attack on the northern Iraqi town of Halabja in 1988, in which an estimated 5,000 people were killed, was the work of Iran. And in response to a query about the invasion of Kuwait, he insisted that the tiny nation belonged to Iraq.

Asked about the mass graves across the country that contain the bodies of tens of thousands of Iraqis killed by his government, Hussein scoffed and called the victims "thieves, army deserters and traitors ... "

You know, if these are lies ...

Posted by Tim Blair at December 15, 2003 11:59 AM
Comments

It appears that Hussein had a personal and political agenda in repelling UN weapons inspectors from home-invading his palace.
On a personal level, Arabs are in fact neuroticly touchy about issues such as personal privacy.
That is why they hate being frisked, or house-searched, by

WORD LIMIT VIOLATION

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 15, 2003 at 12:12 PM

So Jack, you're saying that Arabs are so psychotic over their personal space issues that they'll provoke a war with the most militarily powerful country in the world just to keep the UN from poking through their bedrooms????

Come on, Jack, sober up just once. Not only have we, the awful Infidel Americans, invaded all of Saddam Hussein's private spaces, we've blown them to smithereens. Saddam Hussein was reduced to a private space of a six-foot-deep hole in the ground. Please, pull the other one.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 15, 2003 at 12:28 PM

Pointless. First, if you aim a gun at a cop, he is not required to check to see if it is loaded before he splatters your ass. The UN Resolutions-and the Armistice- required cooperation to OUR satisfaction. This not forthcoming, we brought out the hammer.
Second, anyone who actually thinks that SADDAM HUSSEIN'S words actually mean something... probably won't be swayed by logic anywqay.

Posted by: DaveP at December 15, 2003 at 12:28 PM

I am sure that the left will jump on this and try to push the line - Bush lied etc etc. I can live with the fact that not only is Iraq free from the tyrant but they now have plenty of time to put him on trial for all the things he has done to them.
To see this historic moment and to know that your country played a part in bringing it about is a special feeling.

Posted by: Rob at December 15, 2003 at 12:28 PM

Maybe Howard Dean's new slogan can be "Saddam was right!"

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 15, 2003 at 12:29 PM

Wasn't Hitler's solution to his personal space issues called liebensraum?

Posted by: Art Vandelay at December 15, 2003 at 12:33 PM

Pull that "personal space" stuff on the wrong people and they'll end up giving you a thorough body cavity search.

Posted by: Donnah at December 15, 2003 at 12:48 PM

Let's turn it around, see how it looks.

A hypothetical government of the USA is in breach of UN SC resolutions regarding its weapons of mass destruction. The UN demands that every factory, chemical plant, military base and brewery be open to snap inspections. Then the UN demands that the White House be searched for weapons and documents regarding such.

Hands up those who think this would be accepted by the USA, especially when they have evidence that the UN inspectors are gathering information for a future invasion.

None? Thought not.

Andrea, who did the provoking? Saddam worked actively to avoid invasion of his country. Also, remember that the US had said that even completely disarming would not be enough reason to lift the sanctions which were destroying Iraq. So what incentive did Hussein have to open up his palaces? If the US was serious about its stated intentions - but what am I saying? The rhetoric never matches the reality.

Posted by: fatfingers at December 15, 2003 at 12:54 PM

Fatfingers, you need to change your name to Fathead.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 15, 2003 at 12:57 PM

fatfingers:

You'd be hilarious at a party. No, seriously, I mean that.

Posted by: Art Vandelay at December 15, 2003 at 01:03 PM

Of course, fathead, for your analogy to work, you'd also have to assume that the UN was in possession of the means to squish the US like a cockroach without even straining a muscle, should the US choose not to comply.

Posted by: Emperor Misha I at December 15, 2003 at 01:06 PM

fatfingers,

Thanks for the hypothetical. No analogy is perfect but to make your's a little more accurate, the hypothetical intrusive inspections would be the result of the U.S. loosing a war and agreeing to the inspections as part of the truce. I think the US would submit to Whitehouse inspections if the alternative was getting invaded and our asses kicked again (some hypotheticals require more imagination than others).

The facts are still unclear and there are several possible interpretations with many possible connotations for the coalition but none of them exonnerate Saddam in any way.

Posted by: John, Tokyo at December 15, 2003 at 01:07 PM

Fatfingers, so in your analogy, the inspected govt had WMD which they were trying to hide. Hence the reason the UN was inspecting and they wouldnt want them there.

So you're saying Iraq had them.

So the war was justified.

Fine by me.

Posted by: EvilDan at December 15, 2003 at 01:07 PM

The only troubling thing about the capture and soon-to-be-trial of Saddam is now I won't get to hear as much about the Scott Peterson trial, the Kobe Bryant trial, or the Michael Jackson trial. Mark Greagos must really be ticked off.

Posted by: Polly at December 15, 2003 at 01:18 PM

Fatfingers is just telling us what we already know - It is a terrible week to be in the anti-Bush camp. You have our sympathies and maybe things will get better for you but for now I am declaring this to be Right Wing Death Beast Week! yeeehaaa!

Posted by: Rob at December 15, 2003 at 01:25 PM

Andrea's straight-faced "Hussein..chose to provoke a war with the most powerful nation on earth...over personal space issues" paraphrase of my initial comment was a fabulously cheeky bit of rhetorical sleight of hand, truly worthy of the WMD-believer cult.
Alternatively, I think that Andrea

WORD LIMIT VIOLATION

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 15, 2003 at 01:27 PM

The Kurds lost more than face at Saddam's hand in their own land.

Westerners appreciate that, Jack.

Posted by: ilibcc at December 15, 2003 at 01:36 PM

the real reason Saddam didn't open his palace to the inspectors is that he knew Hans Blix would have a rifle through his underwear draw. Blix is a real perv!

Posted by: Matt at December 15, 2003 at 01:39 PM

Jack - your pulling your own middle leg here mate, if you think that Saddam genuinely tried to pull a deal with the US.

He had 12 years to up and out of Iraq and live out his life on a beach somewhere.

Posted by: James Dudek at December 15, 2003 at 01:42 PM

Jack:

The thing is, under the UN security council resolutions Saddam not only had to get rid of WMDs, he also had to PROVE that he had done so.

Assuming your theory is correct (which I don't think it is), withholding that proof as part of a strategy of deterrence was a pretty stupid move in retrospect don't you think?

Posted by: Art Vandelay at December 15, 2003 at 01:43 PM

Jack Strocchi

Blix wasn't saying that before GW2. Why is that?. Repeating and repeating the same unproven alligations wont get you to Kansas. Ok then so you vigorously supported GW2 up until a few months ago lets all say "Jack Strocchi lied and people died".

Posted by: Gary at December 15, 2003 at 01:53 PM

"As for Andreas's risible claim, that Hussein "provoked the war", exactly who is pulling whose leg here?"

Jack, you are such an asshole I'm not even sure how to answer your incredibly stupid question. Oh wait, I am. Shut up, you stupid fool.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 15, 2003 at 01:56 PM

BUSH LIED!! PERSONAL SPACE DIED!!

Posted by: timks at December 15, 2003 at 02:22 PM

Real cutting edge stuff from Andrea as usual. Rool clever, deep stuff.

Whatever. Saddam is in our clutches. CELEBRATE! And hope it makes a difference. Hope the daily dying in Iraq slows down. Otherwise it makes no difference at all.

(This changes absolutely nothing about the arguments for or against the war, by the way. Nothing. Nil, nada, zero, zip, zilch.)


Posted by: Nemesis at December 15, 2003 at 02:31 PM

Jack and fatfingers, you guys have convinced me. We should have respected Saddam's personal space. The war was illegal and immoral. This kind of thing needs to be enshrined in international law. That US soldier that was inspecting Saddam for lice should be tried for committing a war crime. The US must do this or it will become the proverbial "close-talker" of the world community.

Posted by: scott h. at December 15, 2003 at 02:34 PM

"Rool clever"

Hah? Type English, Nemmie.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 15, 2003 at 02:35 PM

And I just noticed -- LOL tim. ;D

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 15, 2003 at 02:36 PM

Why would anyone believe any of Saddams claims?

Saddam knows he is a dead man, the US can't let him go (and wouldn't anyway) and the Iraqis won't let him live - since we have nothing that we can give him in exchange for accurate info on WMDs, he has no reason to do anything except try and make life just a little bit tougher for us before he dies.

BTW, I wonder if the Iraqis kept one of those big plastic shredders around? How cool would that be as an execution method for Saddam?

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at December 15, 2003 at 02:38 PM

Finally, I have to give in, the Cheese Cake Nemesis broke me down.

Yes, i want more innocent deaths.

Yes, it is all about oil.

yes, the jews are in on it too.

yes, yes, yes!

Oh, wait...no, sorry CCN, you *are* just a fuck head. Please write something soon to prove me right. Should only take one post.

Posted by: Jake D at December 15, 2003 at 03:07 PM

Saddam was an established repeat perp in oppression, mendacity, mass murder, imperialist expansionism, & WMD pursuit, use, & concealment. It was no longer about seeing whether we could “get along” with him. It was no longer about compromise. It was not about being “fair” to him in the sense of giving him the benefit of a doubt. It was about whether he would take his last chance to come clean on OUR terms in a time frame optimal for us, our allies, & our troops at risk in the region. OUR terms would have meant his eventual removal one way or another. OUR terms ultimately included his allowing real freedom. He would never have allowed it. Tough luck!

It’s as looney to leave Saddam with weapons unaccounted for, as it would be to leave a repeat child molester with children unaccounted for.

Saddam & his regime had NO presumption of innocence & couldn’t have any of the legitimate grievances of somebody presumed innocent. People who insinuate assumptions to the contrary, merely sound like Saddam’s lawyers.

WMD tech marches on, proliferating into ever more powerful & accessible forms. Leave Saddam, Qusay & Uday in place into a future, a part of a swamp of variables & deadly synergies? Wake up, grow up, it’s the 21st Century, the 20th is gone as if it were a million years ago.

Posted by: ForNow at December 15, 2003 at 03:12 PM

I mean, to ask how could we expect Saddam to let us inspect his palaces, when we wouldn’t let the UN inspect the White House?

WE’RE NOT SADDAM HUSSEIN. HE IS A STALIN WANNABE. ESTABLISHED REPEAT PERP. He had no legitimate right to complain about intrusive inspections. If it meant a two-week rectal exam for him, still just his problem! If that meant war, GOOD! One less variable in the swamp. One less cranky despot who pursued WMD & planned to do it again.

Posted by: ForNow at December 15, 2003 at 03:22 PM

Harry Tuttle: This is wishful thinking, but perhaps he feels betrayed that France &co. failed to prevent the invasion... So he retailiates by dishing about everything they've done to help him during the sanctions period.

Posted by: Benjamin Coates at December 15, 2003 at 03:25 PM

It really was very generous of the USA to rid the world and the Iraqis of Saddam.

It will be interesting if and when the new democratically elected government of Iraq decides not to let the USA maintain military bases in their country ad infinitum.

We shall see then how strong the US commitment to democracy in Iraq is. Relying on Israel and Saudi Arabia for a presence in the Middle East is not a sustainable strategy.

Posted by: bongoman at December 15, 2003 at 04:35 PM

It will be interesting if and when the new democratically elected government of Iraq decides not to let the USA maintain military bases in their country ad infinitum.

I don't expect that'll be any time soon. Iran has more people, an active WMD program, a grudge against Iraq, and an ideology it's trying to export. Drawing on the experiences of (West) Germany, Italy, and Japan, I expect that the Iraqi government won't mind us having bases there for quite a long while yet.

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at December 15, 2003 at 06:26 PM

Andrea,

You are beautiful when you are angry.
But you will find that your blog batting average improves when you get try to get intellectually even, rather than emotionally mad.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 15, 2003 at 06:27 PM

Tim,

Sorry about the word limit violation. You are within your rights to censor me. If I want to extend comment I should blog, or contrive regime-change at spleenville.com


Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 15, 2003 at 06:27 PM

Thing about USA military bases, though, is that they generate tons of money for their host nations. It'd be a bit strange for the Iraqi government to turn down that money, not to mention the protection the US bases provide from a half dozen extremely hostile neighbors raring for a piece of the Iraqi pie, and from certain European nations that keep looking to collect on Uncle Saddam's debts. Heck, Germany and Puerto Rico both started begging the US to reconsider when we started shutting down military bases in their countries, and neither one has much reason to love the US.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at December 15, 2003 at 06:31 PM

Of course Iraq is potentially a very wealthy country and would not need the financial flow-ons from having US bases on their soil if they could convince their citizens to stop blowing up the pipeline as a protest to the US occupancy.

Posted by: James Hamilton at December 15, 2003 at 07:08 PM

jack gnocchi? if brevity is the the soul of wit then you're truly WITLESS. i dont come here to read about what you think. i KNOW how you think and it pisses me off no end. please fuck off and die. cheers, ross.

Posted by: roscoe at December 15, 2003 at 07:30 PM

Suck shit Nemesis! :)

Posted by: gaz at December 15, 2003 at 08:24 PM

Hey roscoe,

If brevity is the soul of wit, then your lame attempts at humour must make you the arse-hole of wit.

PS whilst you grapple with your humour deficiencies, you might want to curl up with a book on punctuation.

Your weird sentence construction is eerily REMinisCENT of the unaBOMBer's twisted prose style.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 15, 2003 at 08:28 PM

"...your blog batting average improves when you get try to get intellectually even..."

I have no idea what "blog batting averages" might be and I have the feeling neither do you. As for "try[ing] to get intellectually even" -- why should I pedal back to your level?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 15, 2003 at 08:28 PM

Andrea,

Lets call "blog batting average" the ratio of fact-to-fury in any given sentence ie the blogging equivalent of signal-to-noise ratio. Your invective-stream can be fury-arousing, but is not always factually-informative.

Frequent episodes of free-floating spleen-venting are usually a diagnostic that the sufferer has lost the intellectual plot.

If you want to rule, you gotta stay cool.

ciao bella

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 15, 2003 at 08:58 PM

Ooh, I am like soooo humiliated by your blog kungfu. Do you drop this sort of advice on the women of your acquaintance? Must make you real popular with the ladies; we love to be talked down to by snotty men. I quote Dorothy Parker: "With the crown of thorns I wear, why should I worry about a little prick like you?"

Bite me, daddy-o.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 15, 2003 at 09:45 PM

Thank you to all who responded politely.

Andrea, others have beaten you to that particular invective. Art, in case you haven't noticed, this isn't a party. Lies and death, remember? Emperor, you reveal a weakness in the pro-war argument - if Iraq was 'squishable', why the warnings of imminent death (if not from Iraq, with weapons supplied by them)?

continued...

Posted by: fatfingers at December 15, 2003 at 11:05 PM

John from Tokyo, I make no attempt to exonerate Hussein. Yes, my analogy is bad, I made it up on the spot. But it does provoke lateral thinking. Thanks for taking it up, if only a bit.

EvilDan, you read too much into it. As for WMDs, the US does have them and has used them. As have many other countries, democracy and dictatorship alike.

Scott H., I'm not protecting Hussein's personal space, I just wonder why the US and Britain were fine with him for the worst of his atrocities, and now revile him while supporting others just as bad. Heck, Hussein even got a semi-green light from the US ambassador for the invasion of Kuwait. The fool should have known better.

Posted by: fatfingers at December 15, 2003 at 11:07 PM

ForNow, why stop (or start) at Hussein and his sons? You say "one less despot", but the US helped cement another because of his stance on the fictional war on terror. Does the name Musharraf ring a bell? Not to mention the various Central Asian 'stans with oh-so-immaculate records. Also not forgetting the fact that Hussein was aided and abetted in his crimes by the hypocritical Europeans and North Americans.

Andrea, women most likely don't love snotty men who condescend (I can't speak from personal experience). But I guarantee you that Jack isn't trying to pick you up.

Posted by: fatfingers at December 15, 2003 at 11:20 PM

Fat: The "reason that the USA and England were okay with the worst of Saddam's atrocities..." is simple.
There was a Democrat in the Oval Office.

Posted by: DaveP at December 15, 2003 at 11:43 PM

So he provoked a war ... over personal space issues?

Are you saying that isn't a good enough reason for Saddam?

Hussein insisted the chemical weapons attack on the northern Iraqi town of Halabja in 1988, in which an estimated 5,000 people were killed, was the work of Iran.

Critics of the US claim America initially blamed Iran for Halabja.

Posted by: Andjam at December 16, 2003 at 12:09 AM

Given civilization’s increasing imperilment by asymmetrical warfare capabilities, I’d be for knocking dictators off like target duck-figures in a carnival game, but for the simultaneity of their existences on the same planet. Together they strain our resources, repercuss/connect with one another, & may interact or collaborate in a common big picture—which are also reasons nevertheless to act against them. What to do, what to do! They’re bad guys simutaneously on the loose, not bad guys simultaneously safely in chains, so it’d be immorally reckless of us to try to fashion our behavior as punishments to fit their crimes. Even in a justice system with a set of bad guys all safely in jail, their cases may interact, e.g. via plea bargains such that not everybody gets their just deserts. Of course the Left has the self-serving conceit that the USA & its coalition partners lack the moral authority to swat a fly. Leftist ideology led to 85Mn–100Mn murders. It is not the State, but the people that wither way, as Edward Dahlberg said.

The only moral & ethical course is to do things in an order such that earlier steps facilitate later steps, an order such as tends to maximize the chances of success & minimizes chances of failure, particulary big bloody gory failure that also causes US (& world) economic collapse. Since it’s dangerous to do nothing, & impossible to do everything, we must do some things but not all things. Optimization.

Posted by: ForNow at December 16, 2003 at 02:34 AM

I'm not sure I understand the implications of the meme that "Oh ho, USA, you got a dictator. What about all the rest?!?!"

Well, what about them? Is the suggestion that because we can't get rid of them, therefore we shouldn't get rid of any of them? That doesn't make much sense.

Or that they should all be gotten rid of only by diplomacy and UN sanctions? That doesn't make much sense, given a war AND diplomacy AND sanctions didn't get rid of Saddam Hussein. Diplomacy hasn't got rid of Kim Jong-il, even when we accomodated him.

So, as always, I'm forced to ask the complainers: What would you do? What's the alternative?

Frankly, the US and its allies (the real ones, at any rate) are capable of making a difference in this area, whether it's pulling NATO together for a (non-UN-sanctioned) activity in the Balkans, a relatively peaceful handover of power in Liberia, and forcible extraction of regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

None of the situations are perfect; the lack of perfection seems to be proof to a number of people that the efforts should never have been expended.

Posted by: Steve in Houston at December 16, 2003 at 06:02 AM

"Frequent episodes of free-floating spleen-venting are usually a diagnostic that the sufferer has lost the intellectual plot."

Spleenville, Jack, Spleenville. To come here and not expect spleen venting is the height of idiocy. To think that calling attention to the amount of spleen in Spleenville might cast aspersions on Andrea is aspiring to utter brainlessness.

Surely, your lefty 'intellect' allows for better than that.

Posted by: jack at December 16, 2003 at 06:04 AM

ForNow, I think I agree with what you said. But are you, by any chance, related to Don Rumsfield?

Posted by: rabidfox at December 16, 2003 at 06:07 AM

Hey Jack, Nemisis, etc.

I suppose in the excitement over Saddam, you failed to see the Telegraph article from Sunday which pretty much gives credence to many of the intelligence reports prior to the war. Atta was in Iraq the summer prior to 9/11 (Saddam assisted Al Queda in 9/11), they were trying to obtain nuke material (yellow cake in Niger), etc. The Iraqi Council is currently standing by this report.

Posted by: JEM at December 16, 2003 at 06:12 AM

Andrea,

I don't talk down to you, or any other women, although sometimes I unavoidably do talk over them as I am so Big and Strong. They don't seem to mind.

It's nice to see my strategy is already bearing fruit. A little Sweet Reason from me and your BBL immediately soars with the interpolation of a (factual) Dotty Parker quote. Keep it up at this rate and you will be soon be quoting the Dalai Lama.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 16, 2003 at 06:19 AM

Related to Rumsfeld? No, but the compliment dizzies me. Thank you.

Posted by: ForNow at December 16, 2003 at 06:19 AM

JEM

The WMD-story line was a hoax. Do your self a favour mate, and don't believe everything that you read in the spin-doctored or ideolgoical press. Sy Hersh has the goods on how it was done.

Hussein deserved to go whether he had WMDs or not. The only issue is whether it is worth doing it given the scarcity of US military resources and the availabiity of other, more worthy, targets.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 16, 2003 at 06:31 AM

EVERYBODY! YOU HEARD JACK! THERE ARE OTHER WORTHY TARGETS!

LET'S ROLL!

Jack, glad to see you've joined our side, dude.

Posted by: Ken Summers at December 16, 2003 at 07:26 AM

Ken Summers,

The other worthy targets are Saudis and Pakis , who are the key members of the unnamed Axis of Evil, provding aid and comfort to Al Quaed and the Taliban.

Only one problem: These states are US allies, thoroughly mobbed up with the US oil, finance and arms apparati.

But you probably already knew that.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 16, 2003 at 10:04 AM

Ah, it must be wonderful to be omniscient like Jack. He is wise, so wise... You wear a smoking jacket and sip a martini (stirred, not shaken) at your computer, don't you, Jack?

Jack.

Jack?

Jack! Oh -- excuse me -- I didn't realize you were admiring your reflected visage in the side of your cocktail shaker. Carry on.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 16, 2003 at 10:17 AM

PS: why the fuck would I want to quote the Dalai Lama? Is he given to fits of mockery and temper? If not, then his utterances (wisdom-filled though I am sure they are to people who care about such things as he knows) are useless to me.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 16, 2003 at 10:18 AM

Jack, I fail to see how Pakistan is a worthy target. The Pakistani government is making at least some efforts to distance itself from terrorists, and currently is no higher than the B-list.

Saudi, on the other hand - I'm right there with you and I am angry that Bush (and apparently most Republicans and Democrats) sees fit to consider them allies. In fact, there is a long list of countries in serious need of straightening out (diplomatic or otherwise), of which a large portion are Arab dictatorships. Fortunately, a democratic Iraq goes a long way toward destabilizing them so that further military action may not be necessary (and provides excellent logistical advantages should it become necessary).

Posted by: Ken Summers at December 16, 2003 at 10:35 AM

Ken,

The Paki government is extremely unstable, like the Saudi government, essentially at war with itself. Musharaff has just survived the second attempt on his life in the past couple of years.

A war evey decade, a coup every other decade.

Fundamentalists want to get their hands on the state (& it's nikes) & support jihad in Southern Asia.

If it falls, it could well become the fundamentalist heartland of terrorism, ie the USSR of the jihadists.

A candidate for preventative war, if ever there was one.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 16, 2003 at 12:21 PM

Republicans have been courting Islamacists at basic levels of social organisation. A couple of leads that you folks might want to check out:

Might these alliances have reduced US security more than fabricated WMDs?

Might the wealth and power on offer have induced those responsible to look the other way as 911 was in the works?

Might they not be a better target for abuse than pathetic Leftists?

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 16, 2003 at 12:45 PM

Pathetic leftists are always worth abusing. I can't think of a better target, myself.

Posted by: Alice at December 16, 2003 at 12:58 PM

Jack, there are many reasons for taking Iraq first:

Hussein violated the ceasefire terms of the first Gulf War
He violated 18 (at least) UN resolutions
He violated international sanctions
He slaughtered 300,000 or more Iraqis
He stole humanitarian aid
He used chemical weapons on Iraqis and others
He had ongoing WMD programs

All in all, a very easy case for destroying his government. And coincidentally enough, Iraq is in a very good location for striking any other regimes that need to be taken out. That makes Iraq a pretty good place to start (and if fundies do take over in Pakistan, it's better to have a base nearby, no?)

Posted by: Ken Summers at December 16, 2003 at 01:37 PM

You can’t just rush in & invade a place like Pakistan. Its population is huge compared to that of Iraq. It’s under a dictatorship, but nothing like the Stalinoid dictatorship of Saddam. The people there think their government is fantastically corrupt. I’ve heard of marriages called off the moment a family learned that the prospective spouse’s family was in politics. We won’t allow our offspring to marry a criminal! But they don’t think their government is Stalinlike, so far as I’ve heard. Anyway, it would be more than the US or even the US & more than the coalition could handle to invade & manage the place. And invade a nuclear-armed country? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!

This is very unfortunate for Pakistan & India, & indeed for all of us.

If Islamofascists take power in Pakistan, I suspect that India will take one look &—

Pakistan is worrisome no matter how you look at it. “The real Axis of Evil is Pakistan-Saudi Arabia-YemenCinderella Bloggerfella, June 8, 2003. It’s an interview with Bernard Henri-Levy re his book Who Killed Daniel Pearl?.

But it’s not very useful to pick & carp at the Bush Administration’s strategy (& we’re also a bit in the dark because some things are secret; I don’t mean that as a bar to discussion, but there it is). The context for the discussion really needs to be that of global strategy, by which I don’t mean a set of universal principles for treating all countries alike, but simply a big picture in which Pakistan, Saudi, Syria, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, etc., are parts & where actions repercuss etc. etc. as I already chattered about.

Posted by: ForNow at December 16, 2003 at 02:03 PM

Don't interrupt Jack's Matt Helm fantasies with logic, ForNow.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 16, 2003 at 02:31 PM

For Now

You are obviously right about the imprudence and unnecessity of preventative war against Pakistan now.

I was not suggesting that.

But it would become an option in the event of a fundamentalist reaction with a Taliban-style party taking over the state and handing out nukes to jihadists.

The Taliban are pretty popular in Northern Pakistan, and Paki has nukes scientists & nuclear security officials who are fundamentalists.

Not a good combo.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 16, 2003 at 02:50 PM

Andrea,

You are the one fantasising about non-existent WMDs. I am observing the realities of WMD-armed rogue states. Note that the US envoy Richard Haas seems to share my "fantasies".

To be honest, Pakistan frightens me...Rather, what greatly alarms me is Pakistan as a potential meltdown, a nuclear power with too many combustibles in the national mix.
I am hardly alone in my fears -- and yet this nation rarely finds itself under the American magnifying glass.
"Pakistan is an incredibly important country, but I don't think there's an awareness of that in the United States," Richard Haass told me.

Get with the program, grrrl.


Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 16, 2003 at 03:02 PM

Jack, are you sure you aren't mixing me up with someone else? I haven't even mentioned "WMDs." It's okay, you can take off your shades while you're indoors. It will help you see the computer screen.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 16, 2003 at 04:02 PM

And yay, you've found "an envoy" who says something you agree with. Here's an idea: why don't you email him and have a happy little convo about how you and he are So Smart Yet Ignored and How One Day They Will All Wish They Had Listened to You.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 16, 2003 at 04:05 PM

I reckon the score is 20-0 to Andrea.

Jack, I'm gonna quote "Dotty?!" Park atcha too: "Time wounds all heels."

One of the funniest and most one-sided flame wars ever. Andrea would make such a badass shock jock.

Posted by: Dave F at December 16, 2003 at 07:04 PM

I reckon the score is 20-0 to Andrea.

Jack, I'm gonna quote "Dotty?!" Parker atcha too: "Time wounds all heels."

One of the funniest and most one-sided flame wars ever. Andrea would make such a badass shock jock.

Posted by: Dave F at December 16, 2003 at 07:04 PM

If only I had the voice for it.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 16, 2003 at 09:47 PM

Andrea shows her Freudian slip in a laboured attempt to satirise my humble scholarship:

why don't you email him and have a happy little convo about how you and he are So Smart Yet Ignored and How One Day They Will All Wish They Had Listened to You.

Since that is what Andrea does to the Whole Wide World every other hour, I think we can safely diagnose that the poor woman is suffering from a bad case of projection.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 16, 2003 at 11:29 PM

Man, that was a weak swipe. "You're just" (sniffle) "projecting!" (Jack runs sobbing from the room.)

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 17, 2003 at 01:02 PM

And: "...that is what Andrea does to the Whole Wide World every other hour..."

Someone's feeling all hurt. Poor, poor "Whole Wide World."

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 17, 2003 at 01:04 PM

The US sold WMD to Saddam, then gave him satellite pics of where the Iranian troops were. The US wanted Saddam to use them on the Iranians.
Now they cry foul...

The US = fucking joke

Posted by: Keyunt at December 20, 2003 at 09:33 AM

Andrea,
It was not a "weak swipe", it was a diagnosis.
You are projecting again!

The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety

You should stop fending off my therapeutic suggestions with the faux wise-guy come-backs.
I am trying to help you.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 22, 2003 at 06:26 PM