Screaming Penguin

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.