Posted on 08/06/2002 5:40:36 AM PDT by Gopblond
According to published reports around the globe, an American led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein looms just over the horizon. The UK Observer notes that President Bush is "setting the stage for a war in the Gulf this winter". Pursuant to a piece over at the World Net Daily website, both The London Evening Standard and Pravda report that "American and British special forces are now building staging areas in Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, with military action likely within months... sometime before the congressional midterm elections in November". There is also speculation that "advanced bases would be set up in Mosul in the north and Basra in the south" to accommodate some of the 250,000 troops to be transported to the region. All suggests that the attack against Iraq will be launched sooner rather than later.
Just this past week, Senate hearings were underway regarding the significant threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime, clearly a prelude to Congressional debate on the military action currently being planned. The American people deserve a debate before we go to war, and we will get a debate. The Senate was advised that Iraq is now only one or two years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, an unequivocal indication that Iraq represents a "clear and present danger", a hovering menace that must be addressed in a very timely manner. It was estimated that by 2005, Iraq would have enough weapons-grade uranium for three nuclear bombs. Expert testimony corroborated that Iraq is a very dangerous regime indeed, with chemical and biological weaponry being systematically concocted and squirreled away in palaces and underground facilities.
Since President Bush is poised to act, he must now take his case directly to the American people in a more revealing manner than ever before, especially regarding Iraq's ongoing development of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). There are realistic concerns that within a short time-span, Saddam Hussein will be in a position to utilize WMD directly against the US and our allies, or in attempts to blackmail or gain leverage in particular matters. Alternatively, Iraq could pass on this ominous weaponry to surrogate terrorist organizations, thereby enhancing their capabilities and permitting them to administer strikes against the US and other western democracies. To date, Bush has acted quite prudently in regard to the content of his public assertions, providing just enough explanation to inform the public without tipping America's hand or jeopardizing intelligence sources. Given the history of Iraq, most Americans have been receptive to the statements already put forth by Bush. Now, however, the Americans will want fuller clarification of Iraqi circumstances if war is imminent.
In fact, Saddam has garnered little sympathy from the American people since he has consistently exhibited profound disdain for the Gulf War surrender agreement, which stipulated, among many other conditions, that Iraq was not to re-activate its WMD program. From a variety of international spy sources and US intelligence, including high-tech surveillance and satellite reports, it's been ascertained that Saddam Hussein continues to implement his own agenda, and circumvent the cited agreement forged over a decade ago. In recent years, there has been "rolling disclosure" in select media (such as the Washington Times) that has elucidated ways in which Iraq has bolstered its military capacities, including Saddam's effective manipulation of the UN "oil for food" program in order to acquire various technologies that have military application.
When President Bush speaks directly to the American people, he will undoubtedly focus upon the following: Why is a "regime change" in Iraq necessary? Foremost, it is in keeping with "realpolitik", our self-interests as a nation. Of course, it's desirable to free the Iraqi people from a terrible despot, and stabilize the Middle East that is a tinderbox ready to explode. But above all, getting rid of Saddam is pivotal to winning the "war on terrorism", and keeping the American people safe from radical Islamic thugs. Again, Saddam's Iraq is a "rogue regime" that operates hand-in-glove with terrorist organizations that are expressly committed to annihilating America ("The Great Satan") and other western democracies. And beyond these surrogate groups, Saddam is well capable of directly perpetrating crimes against humanity, as demonstrated by myriad past actions including chemical attacks upon the Kurds, multiple atrocities against the Kuwaiti people during his attempted takeover of their nation, and ongoing development of Weapons of Mass Destruction, in violation of the surrender accord. In reference to the latter, President Bush will have to provide the American people with more detailed intelligence information regarding Iraq's WMD program, for the sake of solidifying consensus on this planned invasion.
And, in part, Bush has been playing for time, orchestrating the logistics of the Iraqi assault while establishing a comprehensive Homeland Security program and safeguards to protect us. Because, without doubt, at the time of the Iraq invasion, the terrorist cells in the US will activate and strike out in some measure against the American citizenry. Given the aforesaid, the US is being rightfully circumspect by planning the immediate deportation of approximately 6000 illegally aliens from Arab and Middle Eastern nations. Of this group, we really don't know who is actually involved with terrorists, even peripherally, or who could be successfully co-opted into a Jihad cell. For the safety and security of Americans, we have to deport this particular bunch before the Iraq campaign begins. Importantly, according to Steve Emerson, author of "American Jihad" each of the terrorist cells can "function semi-autonomously and has the capacity to carry out its own recruiting and operations", which is dangerous indeed to the American people.
And, upon attack of Iraq, terrorist wrath will probably be exuded upon our allies as well, most notably Great Britain and Israel. According to the UK Times (TimesOnline), Saddam Hussein is "planning to arm a Palestinian terrorist group with biological weapons to attack either American or Israeli targets". And Great Britain's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is apparently a bit antsy over the imminent invasion of Iraq, as he is now calling for another round of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations before the military action occurs. However, at this juncture it's rather doubtful that President Bush would be inclined to go along with Blair's suggestion, given the time constraints that are in play. From all that can be surmised, President Bush is determined to diligently move forward against Iraq.
I've maintained for some some that the main reasos we haven't acted sooner, aside from logistical resaons, is that we've been busy, along with the Israelis, trackign down every possible WMD sight in Iraq...people forget that for 8 years undrer bubba, Iraq has been busy building the things, and when the balloon goes up, he'll use them against Israel and US troops..so we've got to make sure that we have them all targeted first..and be highly confident that we can either destroy or capture them....this is what the SF units are being targeted to do, and that's what controls the start of the war...
Assuming that we've successfully accomplished the above, do you think that W. would start the attack on 9/ll?..Man, what a move that would be..
And where was all of this concern about Iraq prior to 9/11? No one was talking invasion back then. Saddam was and is still Saddam and there is zero evidence he had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. This is Bush 2's Panama. An invasion for poll numbers.
If the U.S. is truly interested in dealing with threats against it, it might want to think seriously about toppling just about every Arab government in the Middle East except Saddam Hussein's.
Operation Deny Christmas--again?
Saddam hasn't stayed in power all of these years by being suicidal. He is not an Al Qaeda "72 Virgins are waiting for me" kamikaze.
Concern about Iraq has been there since the Gulf War. For the last 11 years we haven't gone more than 3 or 4 months without Saddam ending up in the news.
No one was talking invasion back then.
True. It's called an epiphany. We thought we could contain him, but 9/11 made us realize that he has to be removed.
Saddam was and is still Saddam and there is zero evidence he had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.
Whether he had anything to do with 9/11 is irrelevant. This war is not about avenging 9/11, but ensuring that it never happens again. Saddam has the desire to cause America direct harm on the scale (or worse) than 9/11. Given the opportunity he will do it! The only question is whether he has the means to carry it out. I think it is becoming obvious that he does, or will very shortly. Therefore, he poses an immediate threat to our security and should be dealt with accordingly.
I suppose he could ship it, but don't you think we could track that? And if he manages to use his first one next year, I don't think he'll have much of anything by 2005!
Let our special forces loose around the world to protect our country by breaking up Al Qaida cells and killing muslim extremists and that will truly enhance our security.
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.