Bush Administration Plan to Invade Iraq Dubious at Best

The American Partisan ^ | August 16, 2002 | David T. Pyne

[carenot]

What is a legal war? War of self-defense

Self defence would work.

But not may someday be able to make , ect-ect.

[carenot]

"The bogus stories leaked to and planted in the New York Times about this or that 'plan to invade Iraq' are dubious".

Sure don't seem to be bogus stories.

[yendu bwam]

I mean that just taking out Saddam isn't necessarily an easy task. But I agree that once he and his government are out, the war will have been won.

[carenot]

Stupid is a better word.

Thank you! I didn't know how to say that!

I do not trust the Government, I don't care who is supposed to be in charge.

I am trying to find out, who is in charge.

[RedwM]

And I agree with you.

[yendu bwam]

Let's review some common sense. Iraq is a house of cards. If we were to invade it would be over in about a week or two. Agreed? Now, do you think Sadaam is not aware of this or is he just so insane as to not care about his life or anything else? Remember. He is not even a believing Muslem but a socialist dictator. There is no Heaven with virgins for him. Sadaam would be dead if he were to allow his arms stockpile of chemical or germs to fall in the wrong hands or if he gave them to anti US Islamic Radicals for use here. He knows this.

Much truth here. But he is also likely to be a man hell-bent on revenge (given his profile and his culture). His attempt to assassinate Bush 41 only serves to help confirm this. His own death may not mean that much to him, compared with the possibilities for revenge (particularly since he's already an old man with a country full of lethal enemies). An truly evil man hell-bent on revenge with weapons of mass destruction is worth the the week or two you believe would be necessary to remove him.

[Burkeman1]

Who attacked us on 9/11? Islamic fascist fundamentalists. What type of regime does Sadaam lead? A secular socialist quasi Stalinist state. After America, Russia, and Isreal who does Al Queda hate the most? Iraq and Sadaam. Why was Osama expelled from Saudi Arabia in the first place? Because he opposed US forces on Saudi soil and wanted to fight Sadaam only with Islamic Holy warriors. Whom did we allow Sadaam to crush after the gulf war? Islamic radicals in the South. Against whom did we support with arms, advisors, and intelligence for ten years in a war against Islamo Fascists from Iran? Iraq. Does Sadaam currently imprison, torture and execute Islamic radicals within Iraq? Yes. Is it even feasible that he supported the 9/11 attacks? No. Have we been given evidence of such that would convinve even Britain (our best ally)? NO. Is there evidence to suggest that large and powerful elements among our allies in Saudi Arabia and Eygpt knew of and supported the forces that perpetrated 9/11? Yes.

Why do we want a war with Iraq? Because it is simple and supports templates of war long ago written by policy wonks and the Beltway and doesn't disrupt existing relationships even though they should be massively reconsidered.

[wattsmag2]

Is there any particular reason you left Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, and Somalia?

[Burkeman1]

If he were that insane I would agree. But I don't think so. I tend to doubt the assissantion attempt against Bush. It was avenged for under Clinton and anything he did is suspect (really- any action of the Clinton administration is just not believable on even one subject.) But even if so- and Sadaam is an insane freak hell bent on revenge. I still don't fear him or his regime- it would be over in a couple of weeks. What I fear is the fallour afterwards and a prolonged never ending US presence in Iraq and the Mideast.

[EternalHope]

I support a war against Saudi Arabia, Eygpt and Syria before Iraq.

We may get a war against all of 'em before this is over. But only Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (including anthrax, at a minimum).

Do you think Saddam would use anthrax against us if he could?

If so, do you believe we would be justified in a pre-emptive attack, hoping to head off an attack on us that had not happened yet?

Just curious.

[yendu bwam]

Why do we want a war with Iraq?

Your screed is way off base. There is no love lost between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, but they have cooperated in the past. They are linked by their common hatred of America. In answer to your above question, NOBODY wants a war with Iraq. Our president believes its necessary to preclude a madman with weapons of mass destruction from using them on American citizens. And he's right.

[wattsmag2]

I believe the Israelis would use nukes on Iraq, where would that lead?

A faint glow over Baghdad? I don't know, what do you think?

[yendu bwam]

Fair emough. But the president and many others (a majority of Americans) do fear Saddam's WMDs. Yes, there will liekly be a mess in Iraq. But better one that doesn't threaten millions of Americans than one that does.

[Burkeman1]

No- I don't think Sadaam would use Anthrax against us even if he could. But if he could it still would not be justification for a premptive attack. Do you support an attack against China because they can launch nukes against us first? And what about our so called "allies"? You don't think Syria has a nuke program? Or Eygpt? Or Saudi Arabia? Those are all countries that can afford it and are open to the type of trade that makes it feasible? Don't be naive. We know of dozens of countires that have the same programs and that are not friends to America. Iraq is a point on a board for Beltway empire builders and they have been calling for war against Iraq for years. And the shameful use of 9/11 to justify this in the face of evidence that points to our "allies" in that region should give us all pause!

[Burkeman1]

I don't care what the majority of Americans believe. The majority of Americans also believed that Clinton was a good President and opposed his impeachment. I follow truth. And the truth is that there is a hell of lot more evidence to invade, conquer, and rule Saudi Arabia than there is Iraq. But the Beltway and foreign policy "experts" have their templates and I guess we will go to war against Iraq. And after the war is done our President will dine with some of the same men who really bankrolled 9/11. And like everything else we will read the truth 100 years later in text books.

[yendu bwam]

Do you support an attack against China because they can launch nukes against us first?

C'mon there Burkeman1. Can you not really tell the difference between these two cases?

[yendu bwam]

And the truth is that there is a hell of lot more evidence to invade, conquer, and rule Saudi Arabia than there is Iraq.

Really? What are the odds of a WMD of Saudi Arabia being used against us? Well, zero, since they don't have one. How about Iraq?

[RedwM]

I'm for anything that convinces those people that they should stop messing with us until they have a good reason. Enough of this decadent American crap that they're always spewing.

[Burkeman1]

Interesting argument. Mine is this. the only weapons of mass destruction to be used in the united states was taken over, manned, and piloted by 15 Saudis and a couple of Egyptians and not one Iraqi. Have we had any sort of real effort from those regimes in aiding us? NO! IN fact we were slapped in the face and continue to be. But you want to invade Iraq. Hell, why not. IF I were a beer drinking American joe who watched NBC and Fox News I would want to as well.

[Selara]

But I think you are against Bush's policy against pre-emptive strikes against an nations that would cause our nation harm. As President, his highest duty is to protect our national security and defent the Constitution. In an era of Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, I do not think we have the luxury to wait for an attack on our shore. We do not need absolute proof to attack evil governments who scheme to do us harm. A propensity of evidence will suffice. Waiting for Americans to die at home and knowingly you could have prevented it, is not acceptable. I am sure the Bush Administration and the Pentagon Brass will come to an agreement.

Agree. Sometimes one can walk away from a rattlesnake, and sometimes one can't. If you have a gun it's best to shoot the snake BEFORE it bites.