Home

RANT: The US should NOT attack Iraq

Mon, 09/16/2002 - 07:58 — charlie.collins

I have ranted about this before but at that time stated that I thought attacking Iraq was WRONG, but that the US government must have some information that makes an attack inescapable. At that time I deferred to the wisdom of the Bush administration. It is now clear that "wisdom" and "Bush" in the same sentence was an oxymoronic mistake.

The US administration is still polling very high in that US citizens support an attack on Iraq. I aint one of them.

The US should NOT attack Iraq for many reasons. Chief among them is that a war is a big deal and it should be used as a LAST resort to solve a conflict . In this case there really isnt even a CONFLICT to solve, much less are we at last resort stage. This war effort is still being fueled by Bush administration rhetoric that is NOT being backed up by any specifics or any evidence. Thats not enough to warrant a search of Saddams home, much less a war.

Dont get me wrong. I know Mr. Hussein is a bad guy. I know that he is in violation of the UN security council resolutions of a decade or so ago. I know that "weapons of mass destruction" are proclaimed and purported to be present there. Possession is allegedly present AND there is a history of aggression. Yes that is a bad combination that will hopefully earn Iraq some focus of attention. That still does not give the US the right to attack them.

There are plenty of bad guys on planet earth. Plenty that run countries and plenty that have weapons of mass destruction. What gives the US the right to unilaterally attack another sovereign country that is on the other side of the globe? In my book, nothing short of proven aggression by that country against the US. Saddam was attacking another sovereign country the last time the US got involved, BIG DIFFERENCE from now.

Also, if Iraq does have these weapons then shouldnt the countries within the range of their delivery be the MOST concerned? Shouldnt Jordan and Egypt and Saudia Arabia be in the front of the line to say hell yeah blow em up? Yet all these nations, almost every nation on Earth (with the notable exception of a few like puppetary Britian) is AGAINST A UNILATERAL ATTACK.

Iraq is in violation of UN security council orders, that is a problem, but that has only recently even been brought up by the US. THAT MAY BE a reason for the UN to justify an attack, but NOT FOR THE US TO JUSTIFY ONE.

The straight up reasons not to attack Iraq aside, the Bush administration has started a foreign policy debacle I think unparalleled in the history of the United States. By proclaiming that we need to attack Iraq, help or agreement by other nations or not, the US has alienated itself before any real discussion even began! What for? There must be some ulterior motives for this monstrous war effort. I wont speculate on what the motives are, although there is clearly room to do so.

As of late the Bush administration has backed off a bit on the unilateral we can go it alone garbage. For THAT I give them credit, but why didnt they just start out in a diplomatic manner rather than play the bully and damage foreign relations and THEN have to back off of the original position.

Stupid. Blundering. Idiotic. Moronic. My point here is that even if the attack is eventually justified in an MULTILATERAL manner, because of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in COMBINATION with a history of aggression AND violations of UN rulings, the US still went about the approach of this all wrong and damaged many important foreign relationships in the process.

Comments

Mon, 09/16/2002 - 14:20 — Shmooze (not verified)

Re: RANT: The US should NOT attack Iraq

I couldn't agree more. It seems painfully clear that this is just a vendetta for his father. There has been no specific linking of Iraq to Sept 11th (that I've seen), and all this talk about weapons of mass destruction seems to be a mystery - on NPR Friday some bigwig general was saying it's not nuclear weapons we are worried about it's chemical. Didn't they use chemical weapons on their own people during the gulf war? They have always had chemical weapons... why the sudden urgency to start a war, piss off the rest of the world and create an international crisis? It is troubling indeed... get the world pissed off at us, create even more of a mess by steel tariffs (from the 'free trade' party) all in front of that massive ruling on the ETI Act which could result in billions of dollars in damages levied against us. That is what I want our president worrying about - not creating more strife and hatred in the Middle East.

Mon, 09/16/2002 - 15:06 — atrox (not verified)

Re: RANT: The US should NOT attack Iraq

I must admit, not exactly the reaction to this post I was expecting, I wasnt expecting much agreement at all. I also heard on NPR TODAY that the presidents numbers are UP. That I cant believe. It seems people against the arbitrary war are in a huge minority right now.

Tue, 09/17/2002 - 01:02 — Bwaha (not verified)

Re: RANT: The US should NOT attack Iraq

What is the whole war on terror all about?

After the attacks the phrase "because they hate our freedom" was bandied about by US government officials, and parroted by the mass media. This was the rationale given for the events that occured on 911.

Now do you honestly think for one second that anyone is going to throw their life away because, "they hate our freedom"? Cmon!

That is nonsense, and has nothing to do with how the arabic world feels about the US.The arabs are all hot and bothered about the US for very concrete reasons. It's nothing as nebulous as some "they hate our freedom" crap.

They hate US troops in their holy land, they hate skewed US support for Israel, they hate all of the US's meddling in the middle east. That's what they really hate. I for one don't blame them one bit. If I were in their shoes I'd be pretty peeved too.

Now lets get back to Iraq and figure out what that's really all about. Who supports the war, who stands to gain the most by Saddam being taken out of power, and lastly who really has the power in a democracy?

I'll start with the middle question first. Answering that one any one with a lick of sense should be able to put the rest of the puzzle together.

Now Iraq may have any number of weapons, I won't conjecture, instead I'll look at recent history to see what they definately have. Now we know that they have SCUD missles. We saw them in operation in the first Gulf war. We also know where they tried to target, and even landed a few. We also know that they have no delivery system that can directly threaten any US soil.

Has anyone figured it out yet?

Where do you get your information that forms your thoughts, and who controls the power of the mass media? What are their special interests? Is this why we have seen no real commentary against a possible new Gulf war?

My advise to anyone who's swallowed recent events so throughly is to learn the real history of mankind, and see what has happened in the past, and what's trying to repeat itself now. But don't believe every account written, many have an agenda. Always ask, but who published this?

Who really lead the bolshevik revolution, why did the great wars really start? What is the common thread to history's great tradegies? Will this latest war on terror blow up to dwarf past events? Who stands to gain the most and lose the least?

I could answer all of these questions well enough for me, But if I did that here would you believe me? Work, dig, find out for yourself just what has gone on, and is going on now. The depths of human depravity never cease to amaze me.

YOU ARE BEING LIED TO SO MUCH YOU BELIEVE ALL THE LIES!

Wed, 09/18/2002 - 14:05 — atrox (not verified)

Re: RANT: The US should NOT attack Iraq

Bhawa man, try reading the article. I made a few of the same points in a less Jihad manner.

I dont agree with US action against Iraq, the decision to take any action against Iraq should be based on what the UN and especially the countries IN THE REGION think, not what the US thinks.

I will state though that Iraq has some issues that should concern the world and that IF the UN security council takes any multilateral moves (which they are by definition if its UN) then the US should support that and help even if that means using force. I am not against the US helping to bring Iraq into compliance with UN resolutions, I am vehemently against cowboy Bush and his clown circus of war.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.