Bush Administration Plan to Invade Iraq Dubious at Best

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

[Selara]

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.

To my knowledge, other than posters, the current debate on Iraq revolves NOT around 9/11, but the threat of WMD. Now as to the War on Terror, which is supposed to be on all terror, Iraq did not really come into it UNTIL Saddam brought it to the table himself. How? By his very public pay off to families of homicide bombers.

Looking at what evidence I can see, I ask myself, does Iraq indeed have WMD? Very probable.

Next, would Iraq use such weapons? I believe that Saddam would very much LIKE to use them. He obviously has put great time, energy and resources into them.

Who are his most likely targets? American and Israeli interests and people.

What would set him off? Ahh...now that is the wild card. His public behavior is indicating that it would not take much to set him off.

Consider this, if the American people become convinced that Saddam has WMD and would use them against us, or Israel, then would it not look downright irresponsible of the government to attempt to eliminate that threat?

Thus it would not be a lie, unless you are not convinced that his WMD poses no threat to the US or Israel.

As to Sept 11. Americans know full well, who the majority of the hijackers were. They know full well who were the deadliest fighters in Afghanistan. They know full well who is pumping out the money as protection for themselves, and to the injury or death of others.

It would be insane to take on Saudi head on, at this time though. If it is a true theat from Iraq though...it would be taking out one bird, and severly weakening the big bird.

It would be in the best interests of our national security, we would remove a threat of insane destruction in that area of the world, we would reduce Saudi power and it's flow of money to terrorists. All in all, I still see it as the right and responsible thing to do.

[Burkeman1]

If WMD is the issue then I would point to the utterly insane regime of North Korea. This is a nation that sends ships and troops to probe the lines of South Korea on a regular basis. Just a month ago they sent in ships to attack South korean vessals. They have sent in Commandos to murder South Korean politicians in the last several years! We are talking about a leader who had orderd the kidnapping of South Korean Movie starlets he was in love with! He has launched missles over Japan and is devoloping the capability to launch missles to California! And what are we doing? We are helping North Korea build nuclear plants. This is a regime 100 times more closed than Iraq and we are helping him build nuke reactors. This is the same clown Bush Identified as part of the axis of evil but yet we continue to "engage in dialouge with".

Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Eygpt- these are our enemies- Islam is the enemy. But we want to placate both the corrupt dictators of these lands seething with Islamic radicalism and our own population wich demands blood. Thus- we have Iraq - which had less to do with 9/11 than did your local Arab 7/11 cashier.

[Burkeman1]

So your opinion is that Sadaam is a "madman"? Who was worse of a madman? Sadaam or Khomeni or Iran when we financed Sadaam and instructed his officers and military? Was it the Dictator or the Islamic fascist cleric from Iran? And when Sadaam invaded Kuwait and threw those babies out of the window from the hospital we just had to act right? No- nothing behind those lines- all just up front - the American people were fully aware of the reasons- it was for Kuwait and Freedom right? Just like Clinton's war in Serbia in 98? That was for the "refugees". So I guess when we invade a country that had less to do with 9/11 than my corner 7/11 clerk I will have to wave the flag as well or risk being called a traitor?

[rdb3]

You got it. I call 'em "Contrary Contrarians." They're simply contrary for the sake of being contrary.

Toss in ideology uber alles and it's a done deal.

[Burkeman1]

Funny- I have been on this forum long enough to remember Ritter as a hero. But God forbid he is against a war with Iraq with a Republican in the white house! Now - to disagree with a Bush is to be a traitor. Disgusting.

[Bombard]

People like you and your type existed in the French military in the 1930's. They thought that Hitler could be managed and would soon be gone. Look where it got then in 1940. Iraq represents the same threat as Germany did in the mid 1930's. However in todays world one does not need a large army to harm a great deal of people. With WMD's of various kinds a country like Iraq can by using third parties affect the free world greatly. Look to history and you will find that free people who ignore threats live to regret their inaction. I realy doubt some of your claims in your background when you make some of your statements. I am also a Vet who served several years in the USN. I have looked at Soviet guns pointed right a me and have watched Soviet fire control radar tracking my ship on ESM gear more times than I can remember, I am fully aware of what could happen when we attack Iraq. I know service men and women could be killed. But it is the chance we all take when we take the oath and put on the uniform of our country. We all signed on to defend the USA and the threat of Iraq and its leadership is a clear and present danger to our nation. Hoping it will go away or like the EU hoping that talk will solve the problem is misguided.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! ON TO BAGHDAD!!! DEATH
TO SADDAM!!!

[Texasforever]

Tell me how Scott Ritter knows what Iraq has? Is he willing to bet his money, reputation or even life on it? When was the last time Ritter was in Iraq that we know of? What is his assessment based on? Where is his proof? Why should he not be required to present the same level of proof that he and many others are demanding of the administration?

[Commie Basher]

The number of limp-wrists we have on the Right is amazing.

I am amazed by the number of caricature right-wingers on FR -- people who talk as though their scripts were written by Norman Lear and are auditioning for Archie Bunker 2002.

A true right-winger respects the Constitution thinks for himself.

A caricature right-winger is a knee-jerk warmonger huntin' for Ruskies and ragheads. I thought these caricature right-wingers were invented by the Left. I am amazed to see so many actually exist.

To the armchair generals and warmongers: stop modeling yourself on Archie Bunker. You don't have to promote war to be a patriot and true conservative.

[ProudAmerican2]

Iraq agreed to 100% disarmament, not sufficient degradation. You are disproving your own point.

Try reading fopr comprehension. Ritter had different standards with his two jobs.

[ProudAmerican2]

Let me tell you something else, newbie. I've been in many flamewars here, and you are a joke. You've been PROVEN wrong, and "yeah, whatever" is all you're left with. You'd be better off by just shutting up.

Yeah, whatever...

[ProudAmerican2]

Did time stand still in Iraq on the day Ritter left? Is it still 1998 there or is it 2002? Lets see that's four years. What can happen in four years?

Have you heard of the economic sanctions? How do you think Iraq is importing the material necessary for a WMD program?

[ProudAmerican2]

You remind me of my brother-in-law. He has trouble making is point clear also. I think you need a class in "Argumentation and Debate" You would do good supporting the liberal point of view I'm sure.

I stopped discussing the issue with him shortly after he started the personal attacks.

[ProudAmerican2]

Why did Atta fly to Prague, risking discovery of the most horrendous terroist act ever, to meet with al Ani and then return the next day?

Perhaps you can explain why Atta would share the details of a top-secret terrorist act with an Iraqi government when he did not need his support.

[ProudAmerican2]

Perhaps you can explain why Atta would share the details of a top-secret terrorist act with an Iraqi government agent when he did not need his support.

[wattsmag2]

Nice touch.

[ProudAmerican2]

Now - to disagree with a Bush is to be a traitor. Disgusting.

Exactly!

[ProudAmerican2]

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

Right....

[Selara]

If WMD is the issue then I would point to the utterly insane regime of North Korea. This is a nation that sends ships and troops to probe the lines of South Korea on a regular basis. Just a month ago they sent in ships to attack South korean vessals. They have sent in Commandos to murder South Korean politicians in the last several years! We are talking about a leader who had orderd the kidnapping of South Korean Movie starlets he was in love with! He has launched missles over Japan and is devoloping the capability to launch missles to California! And what are we doing? We are helping North Korea build nuclear plants. This is a regime 100 times more closed than Iraq and we are helping him build nuke reactors. This is the same clown Bush Identified as part of the axis of evil but yet we continue to "engage in dialouge with".

Many countries have WMD. The whole thrust of your arguement is that we are picking on Iraq, when you say that Iraq is not a threat. Tell, me why the United States government would single out Iraq to pick on, in your opinion.

Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Eygpt- these are our enemies- Islam is the enemy. But we want to placate both the corrupt dictators of these lands seething with Islamic radicalism and our own population wich demands blood. Thus- we have Iraq - which had less to do with 9/11 than did your local Arab 7/11 cashier.

You would have us take on all the Islamic nations at the same time? Not me. The area needs to be destablized, yes, divided. This is a war that truely needs to be played on all fronts...using psychological, rhetorical, financial and military. A head on collision in an all out war with all the Islamic is not in our interest today.

[Texasforever]

You don't have to promote war to be a patriot and true conservative.

You also do not avoid when it is necessary and letting the situation fester. Afghanistan was the first battle of this war. It is now in Iraq's court to prove that it has really changed its spots. Let United States military personnel have country wide free access to all facilities capable of hiding or producing WMD. Saddam’s past actions do not warrant an "innocent until proven guilty" defense.

[Burkeman1]

Let's not get into an argument about Ritter. You would be wrong. But let us assume the worst about Iraq. Let us say tht Iraq has developed the trifecta of weapons: Nukes, Chemical, and Biological. So what? We don't have those weapons? India doesn't? China doesn't? North Korea (whom we are aiding in an insane program to build nuke plants won't?). In fact I would bet oil rich Saudi Arabia and flush with American Money Eygpt does as well or will shortly. What about Sudan or libya? They don't have WMD programs? Why- all of a sudden is this Iraqi WMD issue so big and now used by hawks as a pretext for war? We know our "allies" have the same programs and are aided in such by our europeon "allies" in "NATO". Would you be willing to die in a war against Iraq to avenge 9/11 against Iraq? I Wouldn't. The evidence points to our "allies" in the region. I would rather burn Mecca and raise the Cross over their meteor than eat goat in Bagdhad.