Posted on 09/29/2002 3:38:56 PM PDT by raysol
Uncle Sam Globalcop rides again.So much for avoiding foreign entanglements.I stand in opposition to the looming war with Iraq for more reasons than I will list here.I dont favor Saddam Hussein at all but neither do I buy Bush's rational for invading Iraq which is still a sovereign country & its NOT our place to dictate to its people who their leaders should be nor are we to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy as the founding fathers put it way back when.
The case hasnt been made to justify or warrant such a perilous course despite Bush's hollow claims & saber rattling which sounds more like a personal vendetta of his than legitimate national security concerns.To me its more likely to finish what his father started or over oil & both Bushes seem to want Saddams head on a platter just to settle old scores.
Going down this ominous path on such dubious grounds will only incite more antiAmerican sentiments & further destabilize an already volatile region especially if Israel(which doesnt see Iraq as an imminent threat)gets involved in it.If having weapons of mass destruction is the Bush standard for such aggressive action then why not go into China,N.Korea etc who do pose a credible & real threat to US?For US to pick on Iraq is like a heavyweight boxer bullying a lightweight.There is NO clear & present danger to US & if there is let Congress declare war as the Constitution mandates as We the People surely DONT need UN approval to defend our nation but Congress should not just rollover & rubber stamp the pending war resolution either.Let them hear from you now.May cooler & more prudent heads prevail to rein in the warmongerers before this comes back to bite & haunt US like 9/11.
....and some cold beers!
Hijacker Given Flask By Iraqi Agent is from the Times of London, 10/27/01.
There is no threat expressed by the conduct of anthrax research. It is a danger to livestock throughout the world, particularly in the Third World.
But, when somebody starts weaponizing anthrax, and producing it in quantity, they are, ipso facto, up to no good.
And, should they actually use it as a weapon, even if it is simply to demonstrate their capability ("We have this anthrax"), there is only one thing to do: Take 'em out.
Hereafter, though, the Doctrine of Preemption would presumably be in effect from the moment there is evidence of weaponization. Actual use would not be required to warrant preemptive action.
As yet, we have seen no proof that the anthrax came from Iraq. But, were I a betting man, I would give odds. Long odds...
Perfect fit for Iraq, but maybe not for other threats. We need to deal with all countries that train, support, or finance terrorists and we need to be effective and efficient. Overkill on one threat won't mitigate the others.
Agreed. But aren't they already targeted in the resolution supporting the War on Terrorism?
"Overkill on one threat won't mitigate the others."
It serves to send a message. It may have no more deterrent value than the death penalty...but it can't hurt.
Any number of things. Like perhaps some weapons grade anthrax or other stuff that has yet to be unleashed on us. Though I have not heard mention of it in a while, I saw a few stories for a few days a couple of months back that the anthrax sent to Sen Leahy was allegedly of higher quality than the US military had ever made and was coated with something (that greatly increased its air dispersal qualities) that researchers had yet to identify. IMO, I think that it is pathetically naive for anyone to believe that the anthrax was domestically produced and distributed by some disgruntled American researcher. I think that it was developed in Iraq and passed along or developed in Russia and stolen/sold illegally.
I truly think that the world has changed. Now that pissant countries can develop small weapons that can be easily smuggled into this country and used to immediately kill thousands or millions of people, we must act preemptively. Countries that are hostile, and ruled by an unstable dictator who shows any signs of being willing to use those WMDs against us or provide them to 3rd party nutcases must have that capability taken out, like the Israelis wisely did in Osirak in 1981. I have two kids and you will be hard pressed to convince me otherwise; their safety and freedom trumps the weapons rights of some dictator in a funny hat.
Your point about North Korea may have some merit, but there is one key difference: in their case we are talking about godless communists who have enough problems of their own. But when you take regimes that have a ton of oil money and combine that with a nutty flavor of an extreme religion where you get to hang with god for killing people who are not your religion, that is something else entirely.
I think that other countries in that region will be more afraid if the war, and post war changes, go well. Those totalitarian regimes do not like democracies in their midst; nearby democracies that succeed too well in terms of freedoms and economy threaten their hold on their people. And frankly, I do not care how they feel about us as long as they do not f--- with us.
I am sure you are patriotic, I just do not know for which country, the US or Iraq.
As for deterrence, that's complicated. I wholeheartedly believed in deterrence before the Gulf War. Saddam wasn't deterred by it, will the next threat be?
Deterrance fails when the opponent is a.) a madman or b.) a martyr seeking his reward.
MAD obligated us to believe that the Soviets were rational men.
That's the precisely the problem. We must act, but how? In some cases we can hand out inexpensive carrots in exchange for assurances and inspections. In Iraq's case, the carrots are plentiful (e.g. dropping economic sanctions) but the risks of cheating are high. On the other hand, the war has risks and occupation has a big risk of bogging down our military and making it vulnerable especially to neighbors like Iran and "allies" like the Kurds.
Maybe we should have used a little higher level of deterrence against Saddam. A bullet between they eyes comes to mind.
If Saddam hasn't attacked but could attack, then we need to deal with him efficiently. Continuing to box him in is one way.
Navy Seals......
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.