Don't Start the Second Gulf War

National Review Online ^ | 8-12-02 | Doug Bandow

[Protagoras]

For your thoughtful concideration.

It is always important to raise questions about policy when it has far reaching consequences. It is the essence of the informed consent of the governed to the governors.

[RolandBurnam]

Nuke the sand nazis back to the stone age, wait they never left the stone age, well nuke them anyway.

[rintense]

Making war on a country which does not threaten the U.S. is particularly serious.

This is where the article is completely wrong. Iraq is a threat to not just the US, but the entire world. I hope the thought isn't so myopic to believe that because he doesn't have ICBMs, that he isn't a threat to us... he will get them. And he will use them.

[Protagoras]

Nuke the sand nazis back to the stone age, wait they never left the stone age, well nuke them anyway.

Thank you for your thoughtful concideration of the article. And congratulations on your speed reading course. I'm sure you read it carefully before commenting.

[Protagoras]

Your concerns are addressed in the article.

[VaBthang4]

[Huck]

Oh what the hell. Let's go bomb the bastids.

[Protagoras]

Your post is cryptic, at least to me. Do you have a specific comment on the contents of the OP ED? You did read the article in it's entirety didn't you?

[Protagoras]

Oh what the hell. Let's go bomb the bastids.

Your comments are usually more thoughtful, I will assume it is an attempt at humor.

[mhking]

[rintense]

No, I don't think they are. The arguments that Saddam wouldn't use WMD don't take into consideration the biggest factor of all... he is a certifiable nutball.

They exact SAME logic was used in the Clinton admin. toss-aside of the Al Qaeda threat. 'Oh, they wouldn't do it because...' Well, we learned something entirely different on 9-11. And now it's time to stop anything before it starts. Period.

[Protagoras]

I'm sorry, I miss the meaning of the picture.

[Protagoras]

And now it's time to stop anything before it starts. Period.

You are certainly intitled to your opinion. Can I assume you advocate pre-emptive strikes against all regimes in the world who fit the same criteria?

[hchutch]

To me, it comes down to three critical data pieces:

1. Mohammed Atta's meeting with that Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague. Might they have had a purely innocent conversation about strip clubs and sushi bars? It's possible, but not likely.

2. The terrorist training center at Salman Pak is reported to have taught a method of hijacking VERY similar to the M.O. used by the hijackers on 9/11. Coincidence? Perhaps. But again, I'm not too sure.

3. Atta was asking about cropdusters. Normally used to spray insecticide, but if you can spray a gas to kill insects, it's not too hard to assume that you can spray a gas that can kill people too.

4. According to the dossier, Iraq has 360 tons of bulk chemical agents, including 1.5 tons of VX, and 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals, including 300 tons of precursors for VX.

It's like being a cop dealing with a violent criminal who has been known to violently resist arrest in the past. The guy is reaching for something on his belt. Do you wait to see if it's his wallet? If you wait, it could easily be a gun, and you will probably be shot.

In this case, we have to shoot first. It's not going to look good, but the alternative is to place thousands of innocent lives at risk - needlessly, IMO. We have to place the innocents ahead of Saddam - it's the best option we have, and the most rational.

[stuartcr]

The problem with this war, as in the last, is that the only one that's going to get hurt is the regular Joe Habib and his family, not the real bad guys.

[AUgrad]

That's the standard kool-aid response to ANY criticism of the plans to attack Iraq. He is calling you a member of the fifth column. It works better for those who won't or can't argue the merits of the article.

[rintense]

Not really. Iraq is something that should have been dealt with years ago. The irony here is that Iraq is a threat once again (although I think they have always been since the Gulf War) thanks to the UN resolutions that were put in place but never enforced.

As for other countries, I'm of the mind that Iraq will be the example, and the rest of the Mideast will follow suit, one, out of fear, and two, because freedom is contagious. Countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, who have their majority of populations under the age of 40, are ripe for a change. And a democracy in Iraq will be the example to follow. This is why the mullahs and the princes are hesitant to support a US-led attack- because they know it will be their end as well.

[Shermy]

For your thoughtful concideration

O.K.

"Also problematic are Kurdish demands for autonomy and Shiite Muslim resistance to the central government. One defense official told the Washington Post: "I think it is almost a certainty that we'd wind up doing a campaign against the Kurds and Shiites."

Bullshi'ite.

"Particularly worrisome would be covert and possibly overt action by Iran, with which Baghdad fought a decade-long war and which might see intervention against a weakened Iraq as an antidote to serious political unrest at home."

It will foment the unrest.

[dalebert]

We can do it now or we can do it later. Which do you think will be easier?