Bush Administration Plan to Invade Iraq Dubious at Best

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

[Burkeman1]

Too bad we are shooting the wrong snake when it comes to Iraq and more Americans will die as a result.

[yendu bwam]

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.

Whoa there Burkeman1! Again, I do not want to invade Iraq. I (along with the president) believe it's necessary to protect American lives. I (or he) could be wrong, but it's an honest assessment of the situation. And I don't use beer drinking Americans who watch Fox News as a slur. I respect them, more than I respect the judgment (or integrity) of certain others.

[Burkeman1]

A madman? Was he a madman when when we bankrolled him with billions in economic and military aid in his war with Iran- that we encouraged him to start? In fact we were aiding Iraq with billions right up unitl to the day he invaded Kuwait. As for a madman with WMD, that is laughable. Sudan doesn't? Do you really think Saudi Arabia doesn't have these programs? Or Syria? Or Libya? Or dozens of others? Why was not his WMD a reason to invade 2 years ago? 5 years ago? The reason is that it wasn't and it never has been. 9/11 allows our foggy bottom policy wonks and neo conservative empire builders the reason to go into Iraq. They have been calling for this war for years. And the soul tearing events of 9/11- they are using to advance their war of empire. We should all be disgusted. Being "anti-war" is not being anti conservative. The greatest conservative minds in this country opposed entry into WWI (righlty so) and opposed the war against Spain in 1898- as imperialist Europeon wars and not befitting a republic. And they were right. If you support a war against Iraq it is not to protect your children, your state, or even our country but it is to advance Washington empire.

[yendu bwam]

A madman? Was he a madman when when we bankrolled him with billions in economic and military aid in his war with Iran- that we encouraged him to start?

Yes.

[yendu bwam]

Why was not his WMD a reason to invade 2 years ago? 5 years ago?

Because we were trying to get him to live up to his inspections agreements - which he did not.

[yendu bwam]

And the soul tearing events of 9/11- they are using to advance their war of empire.

Yes, you're right!!! The neo-conservatives who have infiltrated this administration have secretly harbored a desire to colonize Iraq - in line with the long colonial history of the United States. And that would be only the beginning. Imagine, colonies in Libya and Sudan!!! I think you're on the right track. An amazing and gifted mind.

[yendu bwam]

If you support a war against Iraq it is not to protect your children, your state, or even our country but it is to advance Washington empire.

This will be my last post to you, Burkeman1. I think you're off in the deep end somewhere. No pole will reach you, I fear.

[Burkeman1]

Please. Inspection agreements? They threw out the inspectors in 98. We have bombed him routinely ever since (usually on page 10 of your local paper - after the local baby kidnapping story.) Stop it. Iraq is no worse a regime than Algeria. Islamic radicals won a free election in Algeria and what did we do? We supported the military which took over! We support Saudi Arabia whose government is so much more repressive than that of Iraq it is laughable. Christians and Jews can still worship freely in Bagdhad. The only place you can pray to Christ in Saudi lands is in the basement of an Embassey in Riyahd.

Do you really think that Iraq poses more of a threat to us than the Saudi families that make up the ruling Saud family in Saudi Arabia? Do you really think that Sadaam is more of a threat to us as an isolated secular dictator than the Wahabist fundamenmentalist psychos that rule Saudi Arabia and the Emirate states?

[Burkeman1]

Yes- that is what I mean (sarcasm)- colonize- move americans across the sea to Iraq and settle the lands (again sarcasm becasue I don't think you get it). Sorry. Not on the same plane. But then again you don't even respond to my posts but to your own misconceptions.

[Burkeman1]

I happen to read alot. I happen to read JWR and the Weekly standard and both have been calling for the overthrown and "westernization" of Iraq for years. That is not "colonization." And likewise the Neo Conservatives are not alone in this. Many liberals as well support this as a collosal committement abroad helps justify a massive government at home.

[PhilipFreneau]

Something about this article smells funny. Very very funny.

Something about many of these posts smell even more funny. What additional provocation do we need? Madman Hussein performs continual provocations, and has made it clear that our nation is in his sights. Walter Williams recently wrote a common sense response to such provocation: "I detest the initiation of force, but if I see someone building a cannon aimed at my house, I'm not going to wait for him to fire it. I would eliminate him and anyone else in his house before he gets a chance to fire it. But then again, I'm not a member of America's sissified generation.

[Selara]

Too bad we are shooting the wrong snake when it comes to Iraq and more Americans will die as a result.

I have read the entire thread, up to this point. Your posts are well written. You put up a good arguement for not entering into conflict with Iraq.

You just agreed that going with my shoot the snake before it bites you, that Irag was indeed a snake, but you assert it is the wrong snake to shoot.

Indeed, there are many poisonous snakes in that area of the world. It's a veritable snake den.

In my opinion, our greatest enemy is Islam....from without and within. As you have pointed out, Iraq does not treat diligent Islamists kindly, then there must be some other reason, that many in our government are giving special attention to Iraq.

The key, must be to the character and nature of Saddam himself. He is aging. He has not attained what he has always wanted. He has demonstrated a complete lack of restraint in his efforts to get what he wants.

Now, if the most dangerous snake was Saudi. What effect would shooting the Iraqi snake have?

In this area of the world, it all comes down to two things.

Oil

Religion. This religion openly states it wants world dominion.

A defeat of Iraq, that left the oil fields still usable, would hurt the house of Saud more than anyone. This hurt would come in two ways.

Millions of barrels of oil on the market would have an immediate economical effect on an already economically floundering Saudi.

It would be demonstrated to the Islamic world that Saudi's much vaunted oil choke hold on the US, was not enough to prevent a US military victory against an "Islamic" nation. OK, we know it's not, but THEY put it under that umbrella.

So, perhaps the Iraqi snake is the right one to shoot first, while we contemplate our defense against the other snakes in the snake den.

[Burkeman1]

PS- The Neo conservatives never had to "infiltrate" the Bush administration. They were there all along. Bush junior only learned to talk more like a conservative- he is just like his dad- a northeast liberal Republican beholden to DC and the status quo.

But unlike Clinton I believe he really tortures himself over such decisions of war and peace. He is amn of integrity and so is his administration. I just think on foreign policy they are letting old play books call the shots. But whatever the outcome. When the first bomb drops on Iraq and we are at war I support the President and the troops. But I know he is making a mistake in the long run.

[Selara]

An add on to my post 212. PLUS, for all the noise now, none of the Islamic countries would actually DO anything about Saddam being removed. They hate him. Again, this would be to our advantage. We remove Saddam, break the Saudi oil choke, and demonstrate that we are not weak opponants, worthy of no respect.

We have to wait for winter.

[ASA Vet]

I didn't erase any of the countries myself.
I stole the map from another poster on FR a few weeks ago.
I don't remember who.
All I did was add the "Isle of Zion"

[Burkeman1]

That is a well thought out and perfectly plausible argument and one I don't disagree with. But when our administration and media try's to sell this as a war to avenge 9/11 then I object. And if they were to advance your much more sane argument as a reason to send our sons to death the majority would object as well. I don't any American to die for a lie- and the lie this administration and much of the media is trying to sell is that if we invade and conquer Iraq we avenge 9/11. That is a lie.

[cajungirl]

Thanks for the Scott Ritter posts,,he is a traitor. And you are suffering some fools on this board. They reallly perplex me, how they deny the reality of Saddam and the danger he poses. They must get a puffed up "what a good peaceful guy I am" feeling from their fuzzy peace feelings. But come the first attack from Saddam on this country they will be acting like Esterhaze on discovering he had given himself cancer by smoking, they will be screaming why the feds didn't protect them from their own stupidity. And scratch all that "peace loving" facade and underneath is a paranoid person who distrusts anything good iin this country,,Ignorance is surely dangerous.

[Burkeman1]

And once we conquer Sadaam and Iraq and then the next massive attack comes on America manned and funded by Saudis and our other "allies" will you be calling those who opposed the war against Iraq "peace freaks" or whatever. To oppose a war is not to oppose all wars.

[cajungirl]

Well, you pose a question with an hypothesis that I do not believe is so. A strong action in Iraq will prevent anyone else in that part of the world from making trouble for us. The incubation of terrorists for sport and to distract the common folk will become quite untenable. I think that part of the world is populated by a primitive sort of people who respond to force and power. Anything less encourages their manipulative gameplaying and comes across as weak. The Saudis will turn on their own despotic government, not us. And we are the most powerful nation on earth, we need to walk that walk in dealing with these arabs. I do think Saddam is the most dangerous person to us at this point. There are other tyrants not worth dealing with but Saddam is in an entire other league from say Mugabe. Saddam will kill one way or another even without provocation. He will kill for sport and to show he can. He needs to be dead and others of his ilk need to be dead. We need to do it or we will all see something far worse than 911.

[Burkeman1]

Your argument is false on so many levels I won't go into it. But are you now saying that we should just invade Iraq to make a "point" to the rest of the region? Is that what we have sunk too? We just invade countries because it is the most popoular with our ignornant population?