Posted on 09/16/2002 4:41:39 PM PDT by ArcLight
Iraq says it will allow U.N. weapons inspectors to immediately return to the country without conditions, but a senior U.S. official discounted the announcement, saying "we do not take what Saddam says at face value."
Word that Iraq would allow inspections to resume came Monday in a letter delivered to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri delivered the letter in a meeting with Annan and the secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Ah, but there's a new sherriff in town. Read the response:
…he gets no input.
Stalling-Saddam is trying old tricks in a new game.
His goal is to defeat the United States. Based on public statements, a reasonable person could conclude that this offer of U.N inspections will not deter President Bush from implementing a U.S. strategy of regime change.
The key to the Iraqi strategy, including the 9-11 attack, has been to provoke a major U.S. response.
In my opinion, Saddam Hussein believes that a military offensive by the U.S. against Iraq, absent U.N sanctions, will provide him an opportunity to launch a major attack against the U.S. and Israel using weapons of mass destruction and appear justified in the eyes of the Islamic world.
That was a huge PR failure on the part of the Bush Administration.
As for the regime change, that does center around Sadaam Hussein, since he is basically the "regime" there. No one is around Sadaam's "regime" long enough to be considered a permanent fixture in his administration.
I've thought all along that this is the one thing Hussein could do that would put the international community not necessarily on his side, but between Iraq and the U.S. The international community will now want to allow the inspectors to do their job before even considering any next step.
The answer to your question is yes.
Sadaam Hussein is rational enough to understand that he will not and should not use whatever weapons he has against us, until we invade his country. Invasion on our part will give him more legitimacy to use whatever weapons he does have, against us.
Invasion on our part is justified, but we have to consider the results of our actions if we do.
No one here is debating the empirical facts of the situation here. Of course the Talaban was aiding and abetting Al Queda in Afghanastan. Nonetheless, the Bush Administration personalized this war, centering it around Bin Laden, who in effect, ran the Al Queda network, not the other war around.
Precisely. By turning making OBL the personification of militant Islam, Bush inextricably linked the War on Teorror's success to the fate of a single man.
Which is an oversimplification so gross it borders on the criminal.
Thank-you for agreeing. I have talked to several other people who feel the same way. Regardless of what people say, this was a huge PR mistake on the part of the Bush Administration.
In regard to this war on Iraq, we need to be careful not to make the same mistake twice. Make no mistake, it will be very hard to get Sadaam Hussein. Not only does he have several convincing body doubles, he will also be holed up in some bunker in Baghdad, which will be very hard to reach just using air strikes. If we really want to get Hussein, we will have to send in ground troops, and this won't be in the middle of a desert, it will be an urban war, in a very densly populated city, where many are very hostile towards America.
The American people do not like the fact that Osama Bin Laden may still be out there, and they will not tolerant an invasion upon Iraq, centered around the overthrow of Hussein, if we cannot positively get him.
And Israel?
Kuwait?
Turkey?
His own people?
He is a lot more rational than Bin Laden, and is not a religious fanatic. If if Sadaam Hussein was really that irrational, he would have used weapons against us already, especially during the Persian Gulf War. He is waiting for the right time, which would be one that would give this usage of weapons against the U.S., the most legitimacy. In a weird way, Hussein's whole life has been a strive for some sort of legitimacy.
"Or sell as many WMD to Terrorists and hope they make it to our shore's. Don't Worry about this Iraq thing. It's in good hands...."
A huge problem with U.S. foreign policy has been that we too often firmly define our national interests after we already act.
If you quote me, have the dignity to excerpt my quotes in their entirety.
Second of all, the question was not broadened to those categories, so my answer to the limited question above is not applicable to the 3 totally different questions you have thrown at me.
Huh?
Anyway, how's this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.