There were already around 3000, just in case you didn't remember... And let's not forget all the bombings, including the Cole...
2. What is the cost of the war in billions of dollars? One advisor to the president estimates the war would cost up to $200 billion, but he was quickly replaced by a more conservative successor.
Good question... How can we know how much a war will cost, since we don't know how long it will take. War is never something that should be entered into lightly, but if you look at a war, based only on economics, you shouldn't be fighting the war in the first place!
3. Are there estimates for how long American troops would have to stay there? Are they remotely realistic? A lot of knowledgeable people predict a very long and expensive haul.
We've seen what happens when we go in, liberate the poplulation, and immediately pull out... Chaos! However, if we go in, and work with the people, rebuilding the country, they will prosper. Look at Germany and Japan, as opposed to Afganistan (post soviet) and Haiti.
4. What are the costs in civilian lives and social and environmental destruction (i.e. is Saddam going to burn oil fields again)?
Well, if Saddam is going to hide behind the civilian population, then it's his responsibility... Check the geneva convention on that one, Babs! And let me see if I've got this straight: We shouldn't attack because he'll cause an environmental catastrophe? Good reasoning! Typical for leftists... "We shouldn't attack over WMD, because he might use them on us..." "If we attack, and he lights his oil wells on fire, it'll be our fault..." "If we attack and he starts murdering his own people, it'll be our fault..." Hey, Babs, he's already doing all that.
5. How much of this war is about oil?
It's NOT... Our NOT attacking, courtesey of the French? Well, that IS about oil. And the $$$ that France has invested in breaking the UN sanctions against Iraq.
It's about forcing Saddam to live up to the cease fire agreement that he signed in 1991.
6. How much of this war is a vendetta against "the man who tried to kill my dad"?
That may drive some of President Bush's animosity towards Saddam, but I believe that the decision to go to war has nothing to do with it. Unlike your hero, who launched missiles in order to take attention away from his grand jury appearance. You're projecting, Babs!
7. Why now? For 11 years (without attacking the United States) Saddam Hussein has been defying U.N. resolutions, as many countries have. Since writing these questions last September, the international community is now faced with a prime example of this situation, with North Korea defying multilateral nuclear proliferation treaties. The Bush administration’s response has been a policy of containment. Why the double standard? Could this be because North Korea doesn’t have oil?
No Babs... What's changed was September 11, 2001. I realize that you've probably forgotten, but there were over 3000 people murdered in a coordinated act of terror. Saddam IS a sponsor of terrorists. Remember Abu Nidal? And the so-called containment is a failure. We must take out Saddam BEFORE he gets nukes! It's bad enough that he's got chemical and biological weapons. Once he gets nukes, then we'll have to deal with him like we do with North Korea... And with NK, we have to take a different line. You see, while Saddam could fire missiles at Israel, causing casualites and damage, NK could wipe Seole off the face of the earth with artillery barrages before we could counter attack. Babs, you're really not thinking too straight...
8. If we preemptively attack Iraq, will Iraq strike Israel who will then retaliate, leading to the Arab world responding, which will set off the powder keg in the entire Middle East and will disrupt the continuity of some Arab nations Mr. Bush counts among his allies?
Probably... Certainly Hamas will from Lebanon, and possibly Syria too. In fact, I have no doubt that terrorists have pre-positioned chemical and or biological weapons to be set off in major Israeli cities. If that happens, Israel will take the gloves off, and nothing will stop them from destroying their attackers with ruthless and brutal efficiency, something that the UN has not allowed Israel to do.
9. Is there really an alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda, since one society is secular and one is fundamentalist? (I've read that bin Laden had issued a Fatwa calling Hussein an apostate who needs to be destroyed.)
There IS an alliance between Hamas and Saddam, and Hammas HAS attacked the US and US interests in the past. There may be ties between Al Qaeda, but it hasn't been released. I know it's dissapointing that since Bubba's been out of the White House, you no longer get your classified national security briefings.
10. What is the responsibility of a powerful nation to follow the rule of international law? ... We should be setting an example for the rest of the world.
International law states plainly that countries are allowed to attack enemy states when they are directly threatened. I believe that Saddam and Iraq is a direct threat to the US and our interests.
11. Will Hussein give weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda? (I’ve read Hussein would be afraid to ... because if Al Qaeda obtained weapons of mass destruction, one of their first targets would be Iraq).
Right... Let's leave it up to Saddam to decide which terrorist organizations he gives the WMD to! Good thinking, Babs!
12. What will be the increased terrorist threat to the United States as a result of going to war with Iraq?
More straight thinking from a leftist... "We shouldn't go after the terrorists that attacked us, since they might attack us again!" What we need to do is track down the terrorist financiers, kill them, kill their families, and when terrorists are identified, kill them and their families too! What needs to be done is to bruatally, ruthlessly go after them, using force that is so far out of proportion to what they have done, so as to make them never consider coming out of their holes.
Mark
As for the "it's all about oil" debate: that argument was stupid in 1991 and it's still stupid today -- if it had been about oil before, we would have occupied the oil fields 10 years ago. But... gee... that didn't happen, did it? And we buy virtually no oil at all from Iraq, right? Hmmmm... but I guess that facts seem to get in the way of a good diatribe, eh?