Home

Bush still seeking approval to attack Iraq

Thu, 09/19/2002 - 08:19 — charlie.collins

This is wrong, and I have spoken on it earlier this week before Iraq announced plans to allow inspectors back in. The US administration having been trumped at foreign policy and overall acumen by Saddam Hussein is now still pushing as hard as possible for military action against the sovereign nation of Iraq.

Its total bullshit. See my other posts for more, I agree that Iraq poses a certain threat to the world, far more so to the middle east than to the US (he cant deliver any purported weapon of mass destruction TO the US, therefore there is no imminent threat to the US) but that does not mean the US needs to act unilaterally to attack a sovereign nation.

This is ludicrous, its madness. Yes Saddam is playing politics and probably has weapons and will probably try to hide them. And? Still no imminent threat to the US. The rest of the countries in the UN (with a few notable exceptions) are taking the realistic, reasonable and sentient human being approach. The specious approach the US administration is taking is ALSO obviously political.

Let the inspectors inspect. If they are not allowed to do their jobs THEN act, not before. Yes we have played this game in the past, do it seriously this time. Send in the inspectors, if they are hampered in any way then bring in FORCE to allow them to continue the inspections, dont just attack the nation of Iraq for some arbitrary "regime change" agenda.

This doesnt seem to be about making the US more safe, because another war in the region that all the residents of that region DONT WANT will obviously not make the US more safe. Rather it will piss of the Arab world even more at the US. If its not REALLY about making the US safer then what is this hell bent for war administration trying to accomplish? I will play the asshole, I will ask the questions, no on else is. Is it an election year? Is it a vendetta? Is it the military industrial complex relating to oil companies and the economy?

Look, we all agree that we need to deal with Iraq because of its potential as a threat to the world due to its history AND THE FACT that they invaded another nation in recent times and then the UN passed resolutions against them. I am not saying we should ignore Iraq, not by any means, I am simply saying that a WAR may not be the only answer as the US administration seems to believe.

And, another victim in all of this rhetoric is the standing of the US on the world front. Foreign relations is VERY IMPORTANT in this day and age. The reputation and standing of the United States has been irreparably damaged by the Bush administrations approach to virtually all foreign policy issues. That alone is enough to make this situation critical, much less the fact that a WAR is on the horizon.

Call and write your congressmen and the President. Let them know that this is NOT a responsible course of action.

For more on the latest Bush blundering see the linked CNN article.   Bush to seek approval for action against Iraq: CNN

Comments

Thu, 09/19/2002 - 10:41 — jheimann (not verified)

Re: Bush still seeking approval to attack Iraq

Quick question for clarification - why do you feel that Saddam can't deliver weapons of mass destruction to the United States? If you are referring to delivering them via missile or plane, then yes, you are correct. But what about just simply making a nuke that fits into a suitcase (yep, this is very possible) and smuggle it into the country? The US's borders are WIDE open. It would not be difficult to do this.

Now, I'm not saying that I believe we should attack. But we should definitely be preparing for it because I guarantee you his promises of unconditional inspections will be broken (his foreign affairs spokesman already tried to say the UN could only inspect military bases). After Desert Storm he allowed inspectors to go anywhere except royal palaces and properties, funny thing is, suddenly military bases were now royal palaces and no admittance was given.

What you have to realize it that we may not have a hard, clear-cut case. However, if you look at historical facts and do a threat assessment, something has to be done.
1. Saddam Hussein hates the US.
2. Saddam Hussein has no problems using weapons of mass destruction (just ask the Kurds and how they feel about mustard gas).
3. Saddam currently supports terrorist actions by supplying weapons, training, money, intel, etc.
4. Saddam has vowed vengeance against the US time and time again.
5. Saddam has broken promises when it comes to weapons inspectors before.

Personally, I think a war is the wrong idea. I would prefer assassination or something along those lines - a more surgical strike. Unfortunately, the US has a standing policy against assassinating other nation's heads of states.

Oh well.

Thu, 09/19/2002 - 13:03 — atrox (not verified)

Re: Bush still seeking approval to attack Iraq

I agree with ALL of your points. I still dont think that means we need to attack Iraq in a unilateral fashion.

I know saddam is a bad guy, I know he hates the US (we have been bombing his country for a decade, I would hope hes mad at us), I know he has a history, all things I pointed out in my article.

None of these things gives us the right to attack a soverign nation. Why are we attacking again, because he doesnt like us? Because hes bad? Because he has said he wants vengenance? Give me a break these are not even reasons to indict him in a grand jury much less attack a country.

As to your point about delivering a nuclear weapon in a suitcase, thats valid. I have ranted about someone driving a bus across the border with a nuke in it scaring me for YEARS, since long before sept 11 I have seen this as a major vulnerability. I also see it as a reason that "star wars" is dumb as hell and in fact I have ranted here to that affect. That said you have changed the focus to TERRORISM if you talk about it in that manner. I have NEVER heard the adminsitration say we are going after saddam becuase he supports terrorism. Thats a different argument. I am saying if we say we are attacking because he is bad or because he has weapons that we have no right.

All that said I do feel that the UN should act and should make stiff up front guidlines about how the inspections will work. Then I fully expect saddam will not adhere to those guidlines, THEN I THINK A UN FORCE SHOULD TAKE THE COUNTRY BY FORCE AND INSPECT IT.

Thu, 09/19/2002 - 15:02 — jheimann (not verified)

Re: Bush still seeking approval to attack Iraq

All valid points. The only parts i disagree with are:
1. Don't leave anything up to the UN. Bunch of bumbling idiots and I wish we would kick their sorry asses out of the country, but that's my own personal view.

2. The administration has made quite a few references about going after Saddam because of their connections to terrorism. During one of Bush's "axis of evil" speeches, he specifically name Iraq as a source of terrorism that we would fight. Of course, he also named North Korea and some other heavy hitters, which I'm positive we'll never go up against.

Granted, Bush is rattling the sabres mostly because his daddy didn't get the glory of bagging Saddam. True, he is probably using the terrorism link, however credible, to gather support for the war. Granted most people in Iraq are probably decent folk and they just got stuck with a crumby dictator. That's why I say the highly focused application of extreme force would be better than carpet bombing Baghdad. I think we both agree that an all out war is stupid when it is really just one looney man who is only a threat (right now) in his own little corner of the world.

Thu, 09/19/2002 - 15:37 — atrox (not verified)

Re: Bush still seeking approval to attack Iraq

I dont think the UN is inept, and it would be hard to kick them out of the country. If it IS broken then we should try to fix it, in this day and age we cant be lone cowboys, it just dont work that way.

As for the terrorism angle, havent heard that one, I do recall the axis of evil. Even so, that is a DIFFERENT ARGUMENT than the administration is making now. That one is MORE VALID in my opinion. Still either argument should be a UN resolution before attacking a country.

Personally I would leave Saddam in power and or not spout out loud that I want "regime change" even if I DO. Thats just dumb. I would go in with forces WITH THE INSPECTORS and make sure they can look at and get whatever they want.

The inspectors that went in last time, in FACT, removed more weapons than the bombing. We have to do this on the ground and NOT under the premise of changing the goverment but rather under the charter of the resolution which states the weapons are not allowed. There is no valid reason to change the government, sure we dont like him, no one does, but there are plenty of places on earth in that same boat, why single out Saddam?

I also think its just childish for the US to be going on the rhetoric warpath without evidence and without the UN. Thats silly. No matter WHAT our objectives the foreign policy has been abysmal and Saddam is trumping us in the court of world opinion, thats bad news.

Thu, 09/19/2002 - 22:17 — Bwaha (not verified)

Re: Bush still seeking approval to attack Iraq

Or just ask US football fans how they feel about pepper spray.

Ask Rodney King about opening up a can of whoop ass!

Ask ths kids at Kent State about the national guard.

Ask the Georgians about Sherman's march.

Yes, do ask important questions.

Comment viewing options

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