Looking into the future, is Saddam Hussein as dangerous as mainstream media says?

[nefar559]

"The world would be better off if he weren’t there, no doubt about that. Surely Iraqis would. But he can’t be anywhere near as dangerous as he was when the U.S. and Britain were supporting him, even providing him with dual-use technology that he could use for nuclear and chemical weapons development, as he presumably did. Ten years ago the Senate Banking Committee hearings revealed that the Bush administration was granting licenses for dual use technology and “materials which were later utilized by the Iraq regime for nuclear missile and chemical purposes.” Later hearings added more and there are press reports and a mainstream scholarly literature on the topic (as well as dissident literature).

The 1991 war was extremely destructive and since then Iraq has been devastated by a decade of sanctions, which probably strengthened Saddam (by weakening possible resistance in a shattered society), but surely reduced very significantly his capacity for war-making or support for terror. Furthermore, since 1991 his regime has been constrained by “no fly zones,” regular overflights and bombing, and very tight surveillance. Chances are that the events of September 11 weakened him still further. If there are any links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, they would be far more difficult to maintain now because of the sharply intensified surveillance and controls. That aside, links are not very likely. Despite enormous efforts to tie Saddam to the 9-11 attacks, nothing has been found, which is not too surprising. Saddam and bin Laden were bitter enemies and there’s no particular reason to suppose that there have been any changes in that regard.

The rational conclusion is that Saddam is probably less of a danger now than before 9-11 and far less of a threat than when he was enjoying substantial support from the U.S.-UK (and many others). That raises a few questions. If Saddam is such a threat to the survival of civilization today that the global enforcer has to resort to war, why wasn’t that true a year ago and, much more dramatically, in early 1990? "
- Noam Chomsky

source: http://zmag.org/ZMagSite/oct2002/feature/albert1002.shtml

 

[Blight]

Cause its Daddys war, or its a war for oil.

IRAQ, i have no problem with them. I think its a war over opinions, and the "humanitarian Americans" want to end his reign cause hes soooo cruuuuuel. Really, they want to make it a democracy so we can influence them and try to change Arabia, the last stong OPINION in the world opposite of us besides China.

 

[nefar559]

What in your view are the true motives propelling a possible war?

There are longstanding background reasons, which are well known. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. It has always been likely that sooner or later, the U.S. would try to restore this enormous prize to Western control, meaning now U.S. control, denying privileged access to others. But those considerations have held for years. September 11 offered new opportunities to pursue these goals under the pretext of a “war on terror”—thin pretexts, but probably sufficient for propaganda purposes. The planned war can serve immediate domestic needs as well. It’s hardly a secret that the Bush administration is carrying out an assault against the general population and future generations in the interest of narrow sectors of wealth and power that it serves with loyalty that exceeds even the usual norms. Under those circumstances, it is surely advisable to divert attention away from health care, social security, deficits, destruction of the environment, development of new weapons systems that may literally threaten survival, and a long list of other unwelcome topics. The traditional, and reasonable, device is to terrify the population.

“The whole aim of practical politics,” the great American satirist H. L. Mencken once said, is “to keep the public alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” In fact, the menaces invoked are rarely imaginary, though they are typically inflated beyond all reason. That’s a good part of the history of “practical politics,” not only here, of course. It doesn’t take much skill to evoke an image of Saddam Hussein as the ultimate force of evil about to destroy the world, maybe the universe. With the population huddling in fear as our gallant forces miraculously overcome this awesome foe, perhaps they won’t pay attention to what is being done to them and may even join the chorus of distinguished intellectuals chanting praises for Our Leaders. The U.S. preponderance of power is so extraordinary that there will be plenty in reserve if things seem to be going wrong. If that happens down the road, it can all be shovelled deep into the memory hole or blamed on someone else or maybe on our naive faith that others are as benign as we are. It’s pretty easy: there’s a treasure trove of experience to draw from.

- Noam Chomsky

source: http://zmag.org/ZMagSite/oct2002/feature/albert1002.shtml

 

[nefar559]

How will the Iraqi people react to a U.S. attack on Iraq? What are the likely humanitarian consequences of a U.S. war?

No one has a clue. Not Donald Rumsfeld, not me, no one. One can imagine a delightful scenario: a few bombs fall, the Republican Guards rebel and overthrow Saddam, crowds cheer as U.S. soldiers march in while the band plays “God Bless America,” the people of the region hail the liberator who proceeds to turn Iraq into an image of American democracy and a modernizing center for the entire region—and one that produces just enough oil to keep the price within the range that the U.S. prefers, breaking the OPEC stranglehold¾and Santa Claus smiles benignly from his sleigh. One can easily imagine rather more grim outcomes. That’s a normal concomitant of the decision to resort to massive violence and one of the many reasons why those who advocate that course have a very heavy burden of proof to bear. Needless to say, neither Rumsfeld nor Cheney nor any of the intellectuals urging war against Iraq have remotely begun to meet this burden.

- Noam Chomsky
source: http://zmag.org/ZMagSite/oct2002/feature/albert1002.shtml