[Diogenesis]

1. A war against Iraq would be illegal
It is legal.

---

2. Regional allies widely oppose a US attack
So what.

---

3. There is no evidence of Iraqi links to al-Qaeda or other anti-American terrorists
see #1

---

4. There is no proof that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction
see #1

---

5. Iraq is no longer a significant military threat to its neighbors
LOL

---

6. There are still nonmilitary options available
Too late.

---

7. Defeating Iraq would be militarily difficult

[sharkdiver]

"He presumably recognizes that any effort to use weapons of mass destruction would inevitably lead to his own destruction". Bullsh*t. he used them against the Iranians. He used them against the Kurds. his own countrymen and killed thousands. Gulf war syndrome has been thought to be caused by our own troops breathing toxins that were blown up and destroyed during the Gulf war. Sorry but this article is pure crap that you need to print up, put it into the bottom of the bird cage and lets your birds use it for the only purpose that I can find for this idiotic article.

[Sinner6]

It is nice that the leftwinger nuts post here so that way we can disarm their arguments and point out their failing logic.

[marron]

America, listen to me. There is nothing to be done. None of it will work. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. You will lose, lose, lose.

Elect Democrats, who at least know enough to surrender gracefully.

[marron]

Iraq is currently in violation of part of one section of UN Security Council Resolution 687

A make-believe law issued by a make-believe institution.

International law is quite clear about when military force is allowed

More make-believe.

Unless the United States gets such authorization, any such attack on Iraq would be illegal

The US is a sovereign nation. As such, it does not ask permission to go to war, or to the bathroom, or anything else.

The United States successfully led an international effort to impose sanctions against Vietnam and insisted that the UN recognize the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia for more than a decade after their leaders were forced out of the capital into remote jungle areas

Proof positive that even Americans who support the UN are amoral and empty cups. In this case we were prepared to uphold the rights of mass murderers in order to uphold UN juridiction over a slaughter they were incapable of stopping. And proof that God is capable of using any tool, even the VietNamese Army, when he decides to move.

The Eisenhower administration insisted that international law and the UN Charter must be upheld...

Eisenhower was a great man, but he was mistaken about international law, and he was wrong in defending Nasser.

[marron]

Although there was some serious opposition to the Gulf War in many parts of the Middle East and elsewhere, it did have the support of major segments of the international community, including several important Arab states.

The difference is that, in 1991, Saudi Arabia was threatened, and was prepared to buy all the support it needed. This time, they are the unnamed co-conspirator, and its money is paying its flacks to oppose US intervention. Many of them are out in earnest, earning their money.

Saudi Arabia is right to do this, because they will not survive this conflict intact. One of the collateral consequences of our action in Iraq will be the end of the Saudi regime as we have previously known it.

[marron]

There is no proof that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction

There is no way that any team of inspectors could ever rid Iraq of any weapons program without, #1, that country's willingness to go along, or #2, the willingness and capability to kick in any door, any time.

The UN inspectors never had that authority. The only authority they had was the fact that, if they were denied entry, the US might, might, bomb the suspected facility.

Without US military power, the inspection regime was useless.

Even at that, the inspectors were required to request permission to enter 48 hours in advance, then would be kept waiting another couple of days, if they were allowed in at all.

There were many facilities where they were refused admission altogether, which was the stated reason that inspector Ritter resigned. He did not have the backing of the Clinton government he needed to kick in the doors.

An inspection regime will never work without an armed force on the ground to back it up.

[realpatriot71]

You know, I'm still waiting for our government to show us the definitive link between Iraq and the Terrorist attack. You can all bow, scrape, and lick boot, but as for me, a thinking American, I will not support a war with Iraq until the powers that be can show me the evidence that Iraq was directly invlved in 9-11.

[GBA]

"During the 2000 election campaign, George W. Bush scored well among voters by calling for greater “humility” in US foreign policy, decrying the overextension of US military force, and criticizing the idea that the US armed forces should be engaged in such practices as “nation-building” in unstable areas. As president, Bush has made a remarkable reversal of this popular position and appears eager to embark on perhaps the most reckless foreign military campaign in US history."

Zunes is absolutely clueless and, no doubt, didn't vote for Bush despite "praising" Bush's calling for greater humility in our foreign policy. Zanes must have missed the events of September 11.

The middle east needs to have the American big stick come in a stir things up. The direction things are headed have lead those with more information than Zanes is in possesion of to believe that the attacks of 9/11 aren't going to be the last, nor the nastiest. Zanes must believe that we should just sit and wait for it. BullSh*t!!! Nothing deters the rise of a violent nation state or militant religious or nationalistic consciousness than a serious and thorough butt kicking. Once that's been accomplished, then and only then, we can talk about nation building. I'm sure that those who remain will be a bit more receptive to reason.

[marron]

Iraq is no longer a significant military threat to its neighbors...

Defeating Iraq would be militarily difficult

OK, which is it? He states that the Iraqi Army is a third of what it was when we defeated it before, then states that it would be difficult to beat.

He asserts that the country's elite has a vested interest in Saddam's survival, when the reality is that it is from that elite that the new regime will come.

He asserts that we have no land base from which to launch the attack, while ignoring our bases in Turkey, and Kuwait, and Bahrain, and Qatar, and Oman. He ignores our presence in Jordan. We apparently already have men on the ground in northern Iraq, and will be able to establish a base fairly quickly in southern Iraq. As for the "sophisticated urban infrastructure", that is actually a liability. One of things that madet the Afghan campaign difficult is that they did not have an urban infrastructure to attack. Or for them to defend.

For example, most of the leading candidates that US officials are apparently considering installing to govern Iraq are former Iraqi military officers who have been linked to war crimes.

This is further silliness. The primary requirement, from our point of view, for the future leader of Iraq is that he be, #1, not Saddam, and #2, that he not aid and abet our enemies. Anything beyond that is for the Iraqis to work out.

[big gray tabby]

As has been pointed out, there are some serious logical flaws with the piece. For one, it is said that there's no evidence Saddam's got any WMD working, so we shouldn't invade. But, if he does, then he'd use them on us or Israel. Well, isn't this the problem? How long do we wait to find out? Until he can hold the region as hostage?

That said, there are some good points made here, even if the dirty old hippie scum who wrote is a little inconsistent.