Posted on 09/04/2002 7:21:03 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
I'll make this short and sweet. I have not seen evidence for a reason to invade Iraq or demand a regime change there.
Okay, Saddam gassed his own people twelve years ago or so. There have been multiple accusations of his development of weapons of mass destruction, including biological and chemical weapons development.
All the TV footage I see of Saddam Hussein is about 10 years old. Show me the evidence.
Good point; I agree. It really bothered me to hear Bush's underlings test the "legal argument" on such an important issue as war, as it gave the appearance that we lacked sufficient grounds to go above board and seek a clear consensus for the record. This war may range far beyond Iraq, and might take several unpleasant turns before it's over -- even more reason for moral clarity and political openness which has made Bush so successful to date. There is no down side to this proper course of action.
Baghdad's push for international support against a possible U.S. attack came to Moscow, with Russia urging Iraq to admit U.N. weapons inspectors to avoid a war that could jeopardize multibillion-dollar economic deals between the trading partners.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri held talks Monday with his Russian counterpart, Igor Ivanov -- the latest in a series of envoys Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has sent to several world capitals to rally opposition to a threatened U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
U.S. President George W. Bush has warned Saddam of unspecified consequences if Iraq does not permit the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to verify that Iraq has dismantled its chemical and biological weapons and the missiles that can carry them. The inspectors left in December 1998.
As Iraq's biggest trade partner and ally on the U.N. Security Council, Russia has echoed Baghdad's demands for a diplomatic settlement and spoken forcefully against unilateral action.
"Any forceful solution regarding Iraq would not only complicate regulation of (the crisis surrounding) Iraq still further, but would also undermine the situation in the Persian Gulf and Middle East," Ivanov said after the talks.
"We hope ... that this question will not be placed to the (United Nations) Security Council, thereby necessitating the veto of Russia," he said.
Ivanov also reiterated that Russia wants weapons inspectors to return to Iraq.
"We consider that this is a necessary condition for the regularization of the situation and for the lifting of sanctions ... I don't see any alternative to this," he said.
"Our talks today underlined that there is a great possibility for a political regularization of the situation surrounding Iraq."
Russia fears a war not only would complicate the tense Middle East situation but also would jeopardize its economic interests in Iraq, which owes Moscow US$7 billion in Soviet-era debt.
Russian oil companies are helping reconstruct Iraq's oil infrastructure and are positioned to reap significant benefits in the future.
Russia and Iraq also are negotiating a 10-year trade agreement, which envisions new cooperation in oil, irrigation, agriculture, transportation, railroads and electrical energy. Iraq's ambassador to Russia, Abbas Khalaf, has said the deal is worth US$40 billion.
It was Sabri's second visit to Russia in four months.
He is expected to head to Cairo, Egypt, for talks with Arab counterparts at today's opening of the biannual Arab League meeting. The Iraqi crisis is expected to top the agenda and lead to a resolution setting out a united Arab position on the U.S.-Iraqi standoff.
Iraq claims it has complied with U.N. resolutions -- imposed following its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, which sparked the 1991 Gulf War -- but has said it wants to continue a dialogue on the inspectors' return, the conditions of which have been rejected by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told CNN on Sunday that the idea of the U.N. inspectors' return is "a nonstarter because it's not going to bring about a conclusion."
U.S. officials have indicated that the return of inspectors may not be sufficient to stave off action against Iraq. Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Sunday the president agrees that "unfettered inspections" are a required first step toward resolving the Iraq situation, but may not necessarily be enough.
Inspections are "no guarantee if at the same time the regime in Iraq continues to try to hide weapons of mass destruction," McClellan said.
The burden is on Iraq to prove it is not producing weapons of mass destruction, he said.
In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi reiterated his nation's opposition to a possible U.S. attack against Iraq. He said the "Iraqi people, and not a world power, should determine Iraq's destiny."
"At the same time, Iran will not remain indifferent toward instability because if a country decides to overthrow another country's government, this will create a norm."
Seemed implied in your post
I am saying that we have to prevent 9/11's of the future.
If we have no evidence of Iraq involvement, how does invading Iraq prevent something in the future? It seems we have more evidence of Saudi (financial) involvement, why don't we take out Saudi Arabia?
Read my post #7. Fred still can't respond to it. It has him stumped. What's your take on it?
We should nuke Germany to prevent WW III.
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.