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.
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.
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.
Nothing is different today from September 10, 2001, or any time since Iraq was ousted from Kuwait.
The writer's argument is standard. It can be broken down into two basic themes:
1. You can't have a war unless you bring enough for everybody.
2. If you have a war, bad stuff may happen.
Let's look at them briefly. The first argument says that it is inconsistent to be friends with the House of Saud and enemies with Saddam, therefore you may not be enemies with Saddam. It also says that you can't defang Iraq unless you also defang N. Korea, China, Pakistan, etc. Why? Because it would be inconsistent to do otherwise.
I disagree. That's like telling a cop he has to let the perp go because he is unable to arrest every perp. It makes no sense. One less perp is a good thing, the American people support it, let's go.
The second argument is hardly an argument at all. It is the old "quagmire" riff gussied up as "urban combat." We have the most dominant military force the world has ever known. We will win. Now mind you, I have a good buddy who could be called to duty in the event of a war. I am not callously sending other men to fight. I understand what is at stake. People will die. All the more reason to give them our full support and honor their sacrifice.
Third, the arguments seems to assume a static world. Isn't it possible that if the US shows resolve ( something we didn't show much of from 92-00) in Iraq, that other nations might begin to modify their behavior? Isn't it possible that the dynamics of our relations with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia could change by virtue of our willingness to act in Iraq and elsewhere?
The article seemed so much like the same junk coming out of Jesse Jackson's and Phil Donahue's pie holes that I hardly thought they warranted more than sarcasm. But hey, what do I know?
Can we go bomb them now?
Yes, very true.
However, neither you nor I have any knowledge of the intelligence detail available to those we have entrusted to lead us.....We can hardly call ourselves sufficiently informed to question tactics and strategy on a war footing. All we have is the pathetic media pablum and the wonders of editorialized information which is fed to us by every imaginable means....both left and right
There has to be great trust in our leaders in time of immense threat.....such as the present.....and I don't think any sane person can assume that the well and frequently demonstrated Islamic effectiveness in killing us without mercy is not not a clear and present danger.
Please have a very nice day.
I consider Saddam's past acts- like the attempt on former president Bush- and his capabilities "sufficient evidence".
While I don't think it unreasonable to ask for more evidence, it seems unreasonable to assume that it will not be forthcoming when and if war is neccessary to remove Saddam.
This is a straw man argument. It is not why we're going to war. The reason the author brings it up is because it is so easy to knock down.
There are external threats as well. 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.
Part of what Bush is trying to accomplish is to tell nations like Iran, "Try something and we will stop you. You're on the list. Behave and improve or face our wrath." Iran won't try anything.
Saddam's complicity in September 11 would present a good argument for devastating retaliation for an act of war, but there's no evidence that he was involved. All that exists is a disputed meeting, which might not have occurred, in the Czech Republic between hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi official.
That's not no evidence. Many people think it is significant.
Probably the best, at least the most fearsome, argument for overthrowing Saddam is the prospect of Baghdad developing weapons of mass destruction. Yet if nonproliferation should be enforced by war, Washington will be very busy in the coming years.
So, we should do nothing, because otherwise we must do too much? Childish. Better to light a candle than curse the darkness. Better to deal with one major threat than to do nothing.
An Iraqi nuclear capability seems less frightening in comparison. Saddam would not use them against America, since to do so would guarantee his incineration. Israel possesses a similarly overbearing deterrent.
Terrorists have been pecking at us for years because they think we won't respond. It makes a poor argument to say that Hussein won't do anything because he wouldn't dare to face the consequences. This is a region plagued by Suicide Bombers.
If Baghdad possesses any weapons of mass destruction, Saddam will have an incentive to use them - against America, Israel, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia - since Washington would be dedicated to his overthrow.
So, we should allow him to accumulate such weapons, in hopes that he won't use them. Because if we try to stop him, he might use them. I find this singularly unconvincing.
Further, the U.S. would be sloshing gasoline over a combustible political situation in friendly but undemocratic Arab regimes stretching from North Africa to Southeast Asia.
Such a tired line. Don't do anything to upset the Arab Street. Get over it!
Even if the optimists who think a campaign against Iraq would be easy are right, and we can only hope they are, war should be a last resort.
He's been violating International Law for 10 years. War is exactly the last resort.
There's certainly no hurry to go to war.
Recent reports indicate Hussein is close to getting nuclear capability. There is a definite need for fast action.
I used to to attend tough love meetings. Parents who attended would rationalize just like this while their children gave them all the signals they needed to determine they were into self destructive behaviors.
The author is in deep denial that Saddam not only wants him dead, he has tried before and he will try again.
Translation: We hate and don't trust George Bush, and we love the terrorists.
Very reassuring. Okay, guys, fold up the tents and let's go home.
Sen Fred Thompson confirms Iraq is threat to U.S.
Links to information on Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Systems and Design (VERY Scary!)
Why is it assumed that the President feels this way? While many in the media and on these boards do seem to feel that way I find it unlikly that our President does. He has all of the military's best minds, including those critical of the war, advising him. So why would he carry on in a belief in opposition to all the best evidence our country can gather. It is far more likely that he has considered the costs, however high they may be, and decided the costs are worthwhile.
Strawman. The Turks never used poison gas on their Kurds.
