ATTACKING SADDAM COULD CARRY HEAVY COST

St. Louis Post-Dispatch | February 2, 2003 | Philip Dine

[Wallaby]

Though a month old, this article has not, to my knowledge, been previously posted. It is one of the few public discussions I've found of ideas similar to those pressed by The Great Satan here on FR.

[Wallaby]

fyi

[js1138]

A U.S. attack on Iraq may well cause the very event it aims to avert: the use of weapons of mass destruction against Americans or U.S. allies, or the arming of terrorists with those weapons.

We can't prevent Saddam from using his weapons. The point is to make him pay a price that will be a lesson to anyone else with ideas.

[jlogajan]

The mother of all battles?

[What Is Ain't]

I have an idea: let's give him 6 more months to prepare terroristic responses to an attack.

[Tacis]

"The likelihood that Saddam would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, absent a U.S. attack on him, depends in part on his links with terrorists such as al-Qaida."

There can be no doubt that Saddam has been working on an attack on the US since 1991. Another 9/11 attack with the threat/proof of additional attackes could force us to stand by and watch as he took Kuwait, moved into Afghanistan, rewarded those who helped him and so on.

It is just like Ireland. All the attacks in the UK were interrealated although different outfits took credit at different times.

The longer we wait, the stronger he gets and the less likely we will be to stop him. Not mentioned, however, is the criminality of not sealing the southern border. Maybe after Mexico votes against us in the UN, Washington will do something, even though it is proably too late. I bet a Mexican general could have made a million dollars moving a nuke across the border and delivering it to a transit point.

[aristeides]

There's another risk if we don't act now that I would assess as more than low-risk: Iraq attacks Israel with WMD's, whereupon Israel nukes Iraq, with God knows what ultimate consequences. After that kind of war, what kind of oil supplies and economy are we left with?

[umgud]

If we are worried about what Saddam might unleash.....kill him quickly and he can't unleash anything after he's dead. Nobody is going to treat him as a martyr, as they would Bin Laden.

[aquawrench]

But Saddam doesnt have any WMD. We need MORE human sheilds.

[The Iceman Cometh]

I have an idea: let's give him 6 more months to prepare terroristic responses to an attack.

That's a great idea, by then he will have nuclear weapons from North Korea and could kill us quick rather than suffer a slow death from CW or BW. /sarcasm

[bonfire]

And no mention of Hatfill? lol

[KellyAdmirer]

Not getting rid of Saddam is not going to make any such weapons go away. Not getting rid of Saddam is not going to prevent him from stockpiling even more such weapons.

Doing nothing does not make things better. It only gradually allows things to get worse until eventually nothing can be done. Cut out the cancer before it gets too big to control. People who write things like this are silly, frightened victims of the image of the terrorists.

[John Jamieson]

NOT ATTACKING SADDAM WILL CARRY HEAVY COST

[speekinout]

Nobody is going to treat him as a martyr, as they would Bin Laden.

That's a good point. We've already seen that even the Iraqi army won't fight to support him.
What he has going now is the opportunistic anti-West radicals who he is training in suicide bomber tactics (and no doubt providing with weapons). These guys aren't supporting Saddam; they are just trying to kill as many Americans as they can.

Shame on me, but I'd like to see us start the war by bombing those training camps into oblivion before the first "graduation day".

[Jim Noble]

This is, at the root, a foolish argument.

Of course if we attack Saddam, he will use the weapons he has prepared against us.

The question is, if we don't attack him what will he do? He hasn't risked this much to develop those weapons for no reason.

The most probable reason is that he wants to use them at a time and place that is optimal for him.

IOW, at the worst possible time and in the worst possible place for us.

Let's effin' ROLL!

[WhirlwindAttack]

Cut out the cancer before it gets too big to control

How about some nuclear medicine for that cancer. We could give them radiation treatments. The glow in the dark type treatments.

Nuke em till they glow, then shoot em in the dark.

[finnman69]

Hmmmm. Lets look at the options.

We do nothing and let the terrorists aquire WMD capability to use against us.

We try to remove the WMD capability from the playing field so WMD can not be used against us.

I vote for the second.

[AmusedBystander]

I guess all the libs forget this quote from President John F. Kennedy (20 January 1963): "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

[FreeCanuckistan]

The reasons for defeating Iraq now, continue to mount. Just because Saddam didn't use WMD's in the Gulf War means nothing.

Letting Saddam off the hook at this point, is not only a 'death wish', but its also a selfish act for those living in the 'present'.

We musn't 'pass the buck' on this threat, I doubt we can afford it.