Arab League: Don't Attack Iraq ( And why not?)

AP via Yahoo ^ | 11/28/2001 | JAMAL HALABY

[KQQL]

Arab League: Don't Attack Iraq

By JAMAL HALABY, Associated Press Writer

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - Jordan and the Arab League appealed to the United States not to attack Iraq, saying Wednesday that such a strike would have dangerous consequences.

Link to the article

[KQQL]

ees for Iraq it will be death

[KQQL]

yes for Iraq it will be death

[CyberElf]

Jordan ``rejects the use of force, external interference in Iraq's affairs and meddling with its integrity,'' said Saleh Qallab, a government spokesman and a minister of state.

What integrity?!

Jordan depends on Iraq for all its fuel.

They have cars in Jordan?! LIES!

In Sofia, Bulgaria, French Defense Minister Alain Richard said he saw no reason for the international military campaign against terrorism to move beyond Afghanistan (news - web sites) for the time being.

That's because the French still have yet to get actively involved in the war. Of course, they won't, however. You can't count on the French to do much of anything else than make fools of themselves.

[WriteOn]

Iraq would immediately turnaround and kick someone weaker like Kuwait. Or lob chemical/bio weapons at Israel...

[vladog]

Don`t stop with and attack on Irag, go after the whole Arab League. None of them are be trusted as far as you could throw them.

[Mixer]

At this point GW is moving full steam ahead and no arab rejection is going to stop him. He has made his mission clear from the begining. Either you are with the USA or you are with the terrorists...I guess we will find out what side Jordon and the rest of the Arab league are on very soon......

Let's Roll!!!

[4TheFlag]

OH WELL, WE'LL kick their a$$ too, AFTER we're done with iraq...

LET'S ROLL!

[america76]

I do think it would be best to go and dump on the Irish Republican Army or some other group of white non-muslim terrorists between our attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. If for no other reason, than to send a message to the Arab Muslims that this war is not necessarily aimed totally and exclusively at them.

Might help to ease a few minds and make our zero tolerance for terrorists policy a little easier to sell in the Middle East.

[Cicero]

That's the worst idea I ever heard. The name of the game is concentration and momentum, not going off in all directions. Why not kick the Chinese out of Tibet while we're at it?

[Torie]

Bagging Iraq may or may not be a good idea. I honestly don't know, but then I don't know what the Bush administration knows. But what I do know, is that the public squealings from certain quarters made for local consumption are totally irrlevant. It would not be the first time that some of them say one thing in public, and another in private. Is that the case this time? Again, I don't know, and frankly I don't care. We should do what is in our best interest, all things considered, and I am sure the administration is doing that. As I posted before, it is a momentous decision really, one of the most momentous to be made I think in matters of foreign affairs since well, maybe Vietnam. And we didn't get that one right. But then Bush is no LBJ!

[america76]

If I knew we could keep anti-American sentiment from boiling over and creating 20 more Afghanistans I would agree with keeping up the pressure. I don't think we can. It's only going to get worse. I suggest the short incursion to somewhere else as a means to let the situation cool a little before heating it up again. That or the war on terrorism comes to an abrupt end. Don't make the mistake of thinking that option is not being considered right now.

[Magician]

Next time we have to go into Iraq to get them out of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia we should keep the oil fields.

[america76]

Cicero-

Just saw this on the Asia Times North Korea may be next