War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 15, 2001
Messages
185
Location
God is Love
Ten years removed from the first Bush administration and once again another Bush administration is gearing up for war against Iraq. The conquer Iraq wing of the Bush administration argues that the military overthrow of Saddam is a vital step in the war on terrorism. The preparations for battle are already under way, as evidenced by satellite images of U.S. Army "tent" cities being constructed in Qatar along with over 1,000 Senior U.S. military planners being moved to the region. In addition, Deputy U.S. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz recently returned from Ankara, Turkey to "buy" Turkey's support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Wolfowitz reportedly told Turkish officials the Bush administration is prepared to forgive more than $4 billion that Turkey owes the U.S, hasten the approval of $228 million in aid to Turkey for the current year and endorse Turkey's request to become a member of the European Union.....provided Turkey allows U.S. forces to launch attacks from Turkish soil against Iraq. The march towards war is on...but should it be???

I'm AGAINST a war on Iraq for the following reasons:

1) The U.S. has no justification for war with Iraq. Iraq has not attacked or credibly threatened the U.S. It's weapons program, while a concern, pose no immediate threat to the U.S. or neighboring countries. Under international law, one country is justified in attacking another only when IT is under attack or about to be under attack. Nothing like that is happening here.

2) Because Iraq is a fellow member of the U.N., the U.N. would need to issue the necessary authority for such an attack on a fellow member. Article 39 of the U.N. Charter clearly states that the U.N. Security Council should determine the existence of any threat towards a member nation as well as decide the action to be taken towards maintaining international peace and security. Tony Blair has been warned by his legal staff that an attack on Iraq without provocation is in direct violation of the U.N. charter.

3).The human cost of war. War is hell. If pushed to the brink in a final showdown with the U.S, Saddam will bring as many Iraqis and Americans down with him. Casualties on both sides could be significant.

4). Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are greatly exaggerated by the Bush administration. However, Saddam no doubt retains some of these weapons and has shown a willingness to use them in the past against Kurdish villages and Iranian troops. A war with Iraq could lead to the very use of weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration says it wants to prevent. Facing military defeat, Saddam might resort to launching an attack on the only targets he can hit-Israel or the assemble U.S. forces in the area. If Iraq were to kill hundreds of Israelies, all bets are off in the region. Israel will protect itself and this could lead to a larger war and possibly the use of nuclear weapons, especially if Iraq killed hundreds of U.S. troops with chemical weapons.

5). Political damage. King Hussein of Jordan has talked about a "Pandora's box" and "political vaccuum" being created by a war on Iraq. The U.S. has NO PLANS for an exit strategy. It is highly possible U.S. forces could find themselves stuck in the middle of a Civil War between the Kurds and Shiites. The U.S. would be acting in Iraq virtually alone and in the face of strong opposition from many nations. The Arab rage in the region could destabilize governments in the region and increase the turmoil in the Middle East. Anti-American hatred would exacerbate itself and undoubtedly produce new recruits for terrorist activity against the U.S.

6). The economic cost. The NY Times reported that the economic cost of a war with Iraq would most likely send the U.S. economy into another prolonged recession like the first encounter with Iraq---only this time much worse as the U.S. would be footing virtually the entire $80 billion + price tag. Deficits would be HUGE, oil and gas prices would skyrocket...and the effects on the global economy would prove to be detrimental as well.

7). No credible evidence exists that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks in any way, shape, or form. None.

8). Only the U.S. Congress has the authority to declare a state of war. It is a blatant abuse of presidential authority to committ the number of resources and human capital in an effort to overthrow a regime that has not attacked us. This is a democracy (republic) of the people, by the people, and FOR THE PEOPLE. This is not Bush's personal dictatorship.

Saddam is certainly an evil man. However, an attack on Iraq by the Bush administration would set a dangerous precedent of preemptive attacks that violates the Charter of the U.N. and undermines the foundation of international law. U.S. and British officials speak openly of preemptive strikes as a necessary response to Saddam's preceived threat and his weapons of mass destruction. The West's attitude is that it can no longer wait to be attacked before responding, but will strike first to eliminate perceived threats before the arise. This is a doctrine of imperial arrogance in my opinion. It is a philosophy not unlike that of aggressors throughout history. It is a formula for endless war and military mobilization. The Pentagon budget under Bush has already spiked $400 billion a year and will rise even further with a cycle of war and vengeance.

The U.S. and the world cannot ignore the weapons threat or dismiss the menace that is Saddam...but I argue that there are always constructive alternatives to war. Has anyone in the Bush camp heard of diplomacy? Iraq has mentioned it would accept the return of U.N. weapons inspectors...if the Bush administration requested. Why isn't the Bush admin working with Russia and other nations to enforce an effective weapons embargo on Iraq? These are just a couple of what I believe are viable policy options when addressing the Iraqi threat.

And let's not forget...a regime change in Iraq will do nothing towards making the image of the U.S. any better in the region. And, who's to say the alternative to Saddam would be any better??? It cannot be stated enough the amount of lives the U.S. is responsible for killing with the economic sanctions we have placed on the Iraqi people since the Gulf War. A recent report I saw put that figure somewhere between 200,000-1,000,000 lives lost due to our sanctions. This doesn't exactly endear the Iraqi people towards the West.

Finally, the last reason I'm opposed to a war with Iraq is personal. In fact, it is really my FIRST reason for being opposed to war with them and I admit it is a SELFISH REASON. My beautiful wife is an leiutenant in the U.S. Army, currently with a non-deployable unit. However, she is being transferred to a highly deployable Engineering unit-a unit that has been deployed for both the Gulf War and Bosnia-in October...around about the time many pundits think such an attack is likely. She has been in the Army for 12 years and has never been deployed. She has no fears/qualms about it...she will readily serve her country when/If called. I, however, will be a nutcase and will not only constantly worry for her well being but I will really resent Mr. Bush even more than I do today.

A war with Iraq is not necessary. Public opinion polls already show that most Americans don't support such a war. Now, we need a President to tone down his rhetoric and a Congress to "check" the President on this and provide some leadership. It's time Americans take their country back from the elite politicians who care only about that chip on their shoulder. This could be another Vietnam...only this time we won't be reading about it past tense in the history books...we'll be living the nightmare daily...and one of my loved ones might be a pawn in this entire ordeal. Our leaders need to THINK about this...hard.
 
I don't think that usa will attack , cause europe doesn't want war continue , russia and asia have a list of their own problems . i hope there will be a deplomatic solution to this problem .
 
Like someone to blame said:
Ten years removed from the first Bush administration and once again another Bush administration is gearing up for war against Iraq. The conquer Iraq wing of the Bush administration argues that the military overthrow of Saddam is a vital step in the war on terrorism. The preparations for battle are already under way, as evidenced by satellite images of U.S. Army "tent" cities being constructed in Qatar along with over 1,000 Senior U.S. military planners being moved to the region. In addition, Deputy U.S. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz recently returned from Ankara, Turkey to "buy" Turkey's support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Wolfowitz reportedly told Turkish officials the Bush administration is prepared to forgive more than $4 billion that Turkey owes the U.S, hasten the approval of $228 million in aid to Turkey for the current year and endorse Turkey's request to become a member of the European Union.....provided Turkey allows U.S. forces to launch attacks from Turkish soil against Iraq. The march towards war is on...but should it be???

I'm AGAINST a war on Iraq for the following reasons:

1) The U.S. has no justification for war with Iraq. Iraq has not attacked or credibly threatened the U.S. It's weapons program, while a concern, pose no immediate threat to the U.S. or neighboring countries. Under international law, one country is justified in attacking another only when IT is under attack or about to be under attack. Nothing like that is happening here.

It's no secret that if and when Hussein did acquire or produce weapons of mass destruction, he would not hesitate to use them or sell them to terrorists organizations that would use them. I think in the aftermath of 9/11, it is obvious that we are not immune to attack, and need to take PREVENTIVE actions to avoid further attacks. Not to mention that Iraq has shot at dozens of UN coalition aircraft over the last few years.

2) Because Iraq is a fellow member of the U.N., the U.N. would need to issue the necessary authority for such an attack on a fellow member. Article 39 of the U.N. Charter clearly states that the U.N. Security Council should determine the existence of any threat towards a member nation as well as decide the action to be taken towards maintaining international peace and security. Tony Blair has been warned by his legal staff that an attack on Iraq without provocation is in direct violation of the U.N. charter.


I, for one, have never been impressed with the U.N.'s ability to keep the peace. The U.N. is often short sited, and in many ways oblivious to the world around them. However, you do raise a good point here that I cannot really offer any sound arguement to counter it. I can only express opinion.

3).The human cost of war. War is hell. If pushed to the brink in a final showdown with the U.S, Saddam will bring as many Iraqis and Americans down with him. Casualties on both sides could be significant.


This is the case in any war, and I highly doubt that this something that the US hasn't thought of. However, sometimes you have to do what needs to be done and Saddam needs to be removed...

4). Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are greatly exaggerated by the Bush administration. However, Saddam no doubt retains some of these weapons and has shown a willingness to use them in the past against Kurdish villages and Iranian troops. A war with Iraq could lead to the very use of weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration says it wants to prevent. Facing military defeat, Saddam might resort to launching an attack on the only targets he can hit-Israel or the assemble U.S. forces in the area. If Iraq were to kill hundreds of Israelies, all bets are off in the region. Israel will protect itself and this could lead to a larger war and possibly the use of nuclear weapons, especially if Iraq killed hundreds of U.S. troops with chemical weapons.


You contridict yourself here, if the weapons of mass destruction are exaggerated, why should we be afraid Saddam would use them? You can't fight a war if you are afraid to take a few punches yourself. This is what the US suffered from in vietnam.


5). Political damage. King Hussein of Jordan has talked about a "Pandora's box" and "political vaccuum" being created by a war on Iraq. The U.S. has NO PLANS for an exit strategy. It is highly possible U.S. forces could find themselves stuck in the middle of a Civil War between the Kurds and Shiites. The U.S. would be acting in Iraq virtually alone and in the face of strong opposition from many nations. The Arab rage in the region could destabilize governments in the region and increase the turmoil in the Middle East. Anti-American hatred would exacerbate itself and undoubtedly produce new recruits for terrorist activity against the U.S.


Alright, first, the US has no official stradegy of any kind yet, I'm sure that if and when they do decide to attack, they will have considered their "exit" and a way of stabilizing the country (Iraq). Arab support of Saddam is not nearly as stong as you suggest.

6). The economic cost. The NY Times reported that the economic cost of a war with Iraq would most likely send the U.S. economy into another prolonged recession like the first encounter with Iraq---only this time much worse as the U.S. would be footing virtually the entire $80 billion + price tag. Deficits would be HUGE, oil and gas prices would skyrocket...and the effects on the global economy would prove to be detrimental as well.


True, a war would hurt the US economy in the short run, but the US and the World will be much better off in the long run without Saddam in power. The US is already taking steps to become less dependent on the Middle East for oil, as we are working with Russia to purchase oil from them.

7). No credible evidence exists that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks in any way, shape, or form. None.


and your point here?

8). Only the U.S. Congress has the authority to declare a state of war. It is a blatant abuse of presidential authority to committ the number of resources and human capital in an effort to overthrow a regime that has not attacked us. This is a democracy (republic) of the people, by the people, and FOR THE PEOPLE. This is not Bush's personal dictatorship.
Public support is FOR the war. as many as 72% of american support military action in Iraq. Click below for the polls. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Saddam is certainly an evil man. However, an attack on Iraq by the Bush administration would set a dangerous precedent of preemptive attacks that violates the Charter of the U.N. and undermines the foundation of international law. U.S. and British officials speak openly of preemptive strikes as a necessary response to Saddam's preceived threat and his weapons of mass destruction. The West's attitude is that it can no longer wait to be attacked before responding, but will strike first to eliminate perceived threats before the arise. This is a doctrine of imperial arrogance in my opinion. It is a philosophy not unlike that of aggressors throughout history. It is a formula for endless war and military mobilization. The Pentagon budget under Bush has already spiked $400 billion a year and will rise even further with a cycle of war and vengeance.


Agree to disagree here. This is a matter of opinion...

The U.S. and the world cannot ignore the weapons threat or dismiss the menace that is Saddam...but I argue that there are always constructive alternatives to war. Has anyone in the Bush camp heard of diplomacy? Iraq has mentioned it would accept the return of U.N. weapons inspectors...if the Bush administration requested. Why isn't the Bush admin working with Russia and other nations to enforce an effective weapons embargo on Iraq? These are just a couple of what I believe are viable policy options when addressing the Iraqi threat.


We have tried this route before, the only reason Saddam would allow inspectors is for propaganda purposes.

And let's not forget...a regime change in Iraq will do nothing towards making the image of the U.S. any better in the region. And, who's to say the alternative to Saddam would be any better??? It cannot be stated enough the amount of lives the U.S. is responsible for killing with the economic sanctions we have placed on the Iraqi people since the Gulf War. A recent report I saw put that figure somewhere between 200,000-1,000,000 lives lost due to our sanctions. This doesn't exactly endear the Iraqi people towards the West.


The sanctions are supported by the UN, and are justified.



Finally, the last reason I'm opposed to a war with Iraq is personal. In fact, it is really my FIRST reason for being opposed to war with them and I admit it is a SELFISH REASON. My beautiful wife is an leiutenant in the U.S. Army, currently with a non-deployable unit. However, she is being transferred to a highly deployable Engineering unit-a unit that has been deployed for both the Gulf War and Bosnia-in October...around about the time many pundits think such an attack is likely. She has been in the Army for 12 years and has never been deployed. She has no fears/qualms about it...she will readily serve her country when/If called. I, however, will be a nutcase and will not only constantly worry for her well being but I will really resent Mr. Bush even more than I do today.


While any loss of life is terrible, your wife new what she was getting into when she joined the armed forces. Ib the awful event that someting bad were to happen, I would think she would be proud to know that she died for her country. I'm not trying to be mean-spirited are anything of the like, and I certain do not wish any harm to you or her, or anyone fighting for freedom, but it is a fact of life in the military that you may be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice.

A war with Iraq is not necessary. Public opinion polls already show that most Americans don't support such a war. Now, we need a President to tone down his rhetoric and a Congress to "check" the President on this and provide some leadership. It's time Americans take their country back from the elite politicians who care only about that chip on their shoulder. This could be another Vietnam...only this time we won't be reading about it past tense in the history books...we'll be living the nightmare daily...and one of my loved ones might be a pawn in this entire ordeal. Our leaders need to THINK about this...hard.

again, I'll refer to the polls I listed above. Americans support a war on Iraq. Additionaly, war can't be fought on the grounds of public opinion. Vietnam is a perfect example. We have elected leaders that we trust to make descisions that reflect our beliefs. If we donlt agree with them, then we don't have to vote for them.
 
from journalist John Pilger's website, for your consideration: http://pilger.carlton.com/print/101687

"Lie Number One is the justification for an attack on Iraq - the threat of its "weapons of mass destruction." Few countries have had 93 per cent of their major weapons capability destroyed. This was reported by Rolf Ekeus, the chairman of the United Nations body authorised to inspect and destroy Iraq's arsenal following the Gulf War in 1991. UN inspectors certified that 817 out of the 819 Iraqi long-range missiles were destroyed. In 1999, a special panel of the Security Council recorded that Iraq's main biological weapons facilities (supplied originally by the US and Britain) "have been destroyed and rendered harmless."

As for Saddam Hussein's "nuclear threat," the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq's nuclear weapons programme had been eliminated "efficiently and effectively". The IAEA inspectors still travel to Iraq and in January reported full Iraqi compliance. Blair and Bush never mention this when they demand that "the weapons inspectors are allowed back". Nor do they remind us that the UN inspectors were never expelled by the Iraqis, but withdrawn only after it was revealed they had been infiltrated by US intelligence.

Lie Number Two is the connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of September 11. There was the rumour that Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers, had met an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic last year. The Czech police say he was not even in the country last year. On February 5, a New York Times investigation concluded: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups."

Lie Number Three is that Saddam Hussein, not the US and Britain, "is blocking humanitarian supplies from reaching the people of Iraq." (Foreign Office minister Peter Hain). The opposite is true. The United States, with British compliance, is currently blocking a record $5billion worth of humanitarian supplies from the people of Iraq. These are shipments already approved by the UN Office of Iraq, which is authorised by the Security Council. They include life-saving drugs, painkillers, vaccines, cancer diagnostic equipment.

This wanton denial is rarely reported in Britain. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mostly children, have died as a consequence of an American and British riven embargo on Iraq that resembles a medieval siege. The embargo allows Iraq less than ?100 with which to feed and care for one person for a whole year. This a major factor, says the United Nations' Children's Fund, in the death of more than 600,000 infants.

I have seen the appalling state of the children of Iraq. I have sat next to an Iraqi doctor in a modern hospital while she has turned away parents with children suffering from cancers that are part of what they call a "Hiroshima epidemic" - caused, according to several studies, by the depleted uranium that was used by the US and Britain in the Gulf War and is now carried in the dust of the desert. Not only is Iraq denied equipment to clean up its contaminated battlefields, but also cancer drugs and hospital equipment.

I showed a list of barred drugs given to me by Iraqi doctors to Professor Karol Sikora, who as chief of the cancer programme of the World Health Organisation, wrote in the British Medical Journal: "Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisers (to the UN Sanctions Committee). There seems to be a rather ludicrous notion that such agents could be converted into chemical and other weapons." He told me: "Nearly all these drugs are available in every British hospital. It seems crazy they couldn't have morphine. When I was in Iraq, in one hospital they had a little bottle of aspirin pills to go around 200 patients in pain." No one doubts that if the murderous Saddam Hussein saw advantage in deliberately denying his people humanitarian supplies, he would do so; but the UN, from the Secretary General himself, has said that, while the regime could do more, it has not withheld supplies.

Denis Halliday, the assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, resigned in protest at the embargo which he described as "genocidal". Halliday was responsible for the UN's humanitarian programme in Iraq. His successor, Hans Von Sponeck, also resigned in disgust. Last November, they wrote: "The death of 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad."

Those who speak these facts are abused by Blair ministers as apologists for Saddam Hussein - so embroiled is the government with the Bush administration's exploitation of America's own tragedy on September 11. This has prevented public discussion of the crime of an embargo that has hurt only the most vulnerable Iraqis and which is to be compounded by the crime of attacking the stricken nation. Unknown to most of the British public, RAF and American aircraft have been bombing Iraq, week after week, for more than two years. The cost to the British taxpayer is ?800million a year. The Wall Street Journal reported that the US and Britain faced a "dilemma" because "few targets remain". "We're down to the last outhouse," said a Pentagon official.

IN any attack on Iraq, Saddam Hussein's escape route is virtually assured - just as Osama bin Laden's was. The US and Britain have no wish to free the Iraqi people from a tyranny the CIA once described as its "greatest triumph". The last thing they want is a separate Kurdish state and another allied to the Shi'ite majority in neighbouring Iran. They want another Saddam Hussein: one who will do as he is told.

On March 13, the Foreign Office entertained Brigadier-General Najib Salihi, a former commander of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard and chief of the dreaded military intelligence who took part in the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Now funded by the CIA, the general "denies any war crimes". Not that he would ever face arrest in the West. At the Foreign Office, he is known as a "rapidly rising star". He is their man, and Washington's man.

The British soldiers who take part in an invasion have every right to know the dirty secrets that will underpin their action, and extend the suffering of a people held hostage to a dictatorship and to international power games over which they have no control. Two weeks ago, the Americans made clear they were prepared to use "low yield" nuclear weapons, a threat echoed here by Defence Secretary Geoffrey Hoon.

When will Europe stand up? If the leaders of the European Union fall silent, too, in the face of such danger, what is Europe for? In this country, there is an honourable rallying cry: Not In Our Name. Bush and Blair must be restrained from killing large numbers of innocents in our name - a view, according to the polls, shared by a majority of the British people. An arms and military equipment embargo must be enforced throughout the region, from Saddam Hussein's Iraq to Ariel Sharon's Israel. Above all, the siege of both the Iraqi and Palestinian peoples must end now."
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

Zooropa said:
Arab support of Saddam is not nearly as stong as you suggest.

Maybe not, but Arab hatred against Israel is. Sharon has already expressed his will to participate in a war against Iraq and I'm not sure whether other Arab countries will tollerate that. Movements like Hezbollah are already standing on the lebanese border ready for an attack on Isreal, so there's a chance Isreal will launch a pre-emptive strike first. This could end into a full scale war throughout the entire region.

And what will happen after the war has been 'won'? Some people say that Iraq (without an army or government) will be divided amongst countries like Saudi Arabai, Kuwait and Iran. There's a chance it will simply cease to exist.

I am however confident this attack will come. Bush has already said he was gonna go for Saddam so he kinda forced himself into this position. He doesn't want to be the second Bush who's not going into Baghdad.
 
Like someone to blame said:
In addition, Deputy U.S. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz recently returned from Ankara, Turkey to "buy" Turkey's support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Wolfowitz reportedly told Turkish officials the Bush administration is prepared to forgive more than $4 billion that Turkey owes the U.S, hasten the approval of $228 million in aid to Turkey for the current year and endorse Turkey's request to become a member of the European Union.....provided Turkey allows U.S. forces to launch attacks from Turkish soil against Iraq. The march towards war is on...but should it be???

I don't think the US has a say in whether or not countries become members of the European Union. It has very strict criteria and the way Turkey's ideas of human rights are going, I don't think we'll be welcoming it into the EU very soon.

But let us not forget that the US has promised (provided Turkey allows U.S. forces to use Turkish soil) to oppose and obstruct the forming of an independant Kurdish state. Turkey is very happy with these terms. :|
 
I don't support this, and I firmly hope that the Canadian Government goes along with the wishes of most Canadians and stays the hell out of Iraq.
 
stealth-bomber-25.jpg





z~edge
 
We will ,we will .. rock you ...... some may ask why rock out now ...

z-edge , baby played too much with his toy-soldiers :idea:
 
Re: Re: Re: War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

DrTeeth said:
Sharon has already expressed his will to participate in a war against Iraq and I'm not sure whether other Arab countries will tollerate that.

As much as I am not a fan of Sharon, I must say that I can not blame Israel for wanting to get a piece of Saddam; if you recall from the 1991 war on Iraq, Saddam launched "Scud" missiles at random targets (including neighborhoods) in Tel Aviv.

And also, Saddam kills 500,000 Iraqi children everyday (or whatever the figure is) so that he can blame it on the infidels/great Satans of the West (Bush Sr -->Clinton -->Bush Jr) and garner international sympathy. Apparently, his strategy is working.

~U2Alabama
 
zooropa: I don't find anything contradictory about my 4th reason for opposing military action in Iraq. The Bush administration believees Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction-yet have no proof. No doubt, as I admitted, Iraq may very well possess some of these weapons. If we were to attack Iraq Saddam undoubtedly would use whatever weapons he had against us. Subsequently, in an ironic twist, the Bush administration would have caused Iraq to use the very weapons of mass destruction it possesses against us and which we are supposedly trying to prevent FROM being used.

Re: the polls you cite. In my original comments I was relying on CNN/Gallup poll numbers from April that asked "Do you support the use of U.S. ground forces in Iraq". That question had a 50% NO response and a 46% YES. Your poll data is more current. I don't, however, believe this provides any type of mandate to Bush...and it doesn't address the larger issue of his autoritative capacity to simply order an attack on Iraq without Congressional approval under the Constitution.

What bothers me greatly is how the Bush team is spinning this Iraqi conquest to the American people. You state that "...we have elected leaders that we trust to make decisions that reflect our beliefs". I, for one, have little faith in elected leaders of any party to make decisions that reflect our beliefs. An invasion of Iraq isn't about any "axis of evil"... it's about global supremacy, oil, and American domestic politics. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter (a card carrying Republican in the conservative-moderate range who voted for Bush) recently said the following at Suffolk Law School in Boston:

"This (Iraq) is not about the security of the United States. This is about domestic American politics. The national security of the United States has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven political ambitions. The day we go to war for that reason is the day we have failed collectively as a nation."

According to Ritter, there is no justification, in terms of national security, international law or basic morality, to justify this coming war with Iraq. When asked pointedly what the mid-October scheduling of this conflict has to do with the midterm Congressional elections that will follow a few weeks later, he replied simply, "Everything."

Zooropa asked what my point was in reason 7 to my opposition to the war in Iraq, when I said that no credible evidence exists that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. My point is that the Bush administration has recently been using a supposed link between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi official as evidence that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11...i.e. thereby providing just grounds to attack Iraq. There is no link and no evidence to suggest such a link exists. Ritter commented on this "The Bush administration has provided the American public with little more than rhetorically laced speculation. There has been nothing in the way of substantive fact presented that makes the case Iraq possesses these weapons or has links to international terror, that Iraq poses a threat to the U.S. worthy of war."

The Bush admin's basis for war is the continued existence of a weapons program that threatens America. Ritter noted explicity that Iraq did possess these weapons AT ONE TIME--as he spent 7 years tracking them down. By the time Ritter and his UNSCOM team was finished he was confident that 90-95% of Iraq's weapons were destroyed. Ritter believes that when UNSCOM pulled out of Iraq in 1997 that Iraq was only "technically capable" of restarting it's weapons program within six months of his departure. That leaves 3 1/2 years to manufacture and weaponize all the horrors that has purportedly motivated the Bush administration to attack. However, Ritter notes that Iraq would have had to start completely from scratch and procure complicated tools and technology required through front companies, which would be detected. The manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits vented gassess that would have been detected by now if they existed. The manufacture of nuclear weapons emits gamma rays that would have been detected by now if THEY existed. The U.S. has been watching, via spy satellites and other means, and have seen none of this. Ritter states "If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof."

So why go to Iraq? Ritter believes it comes down to opportunistic politics and a decade of anti-Hussein rhetoric that has boxed the Bush administration into a rhetorical corner. Some say that the U.S. may be holding secret evidence incriminating Iraq, but Ritter dismisses this idea out of hand, stating "If the administration had such secret evidence we'd be at war in Iraq right now. We wouldn't be talking about it. It would be a fait accompli." Our immediate action in Afghanistan, whose ties to Al Qaeda were manifest, lends credibility to this point. Ritter finished by saying, "The clock is ticking, and it's ticking towards war. And it's going to be a real war. It's going to be a war that will result in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. It's a war that is going to devastate Iraq. It's a war that's going to destroy the credibility of the U.S. I just came back from London, and I can tell you this--Tony Blair may talk a good show about war, but the British people and the bulk of the British government do not support this war. The Europeans do not support this war. NATO does not support this war. No one supports this war."

Obviously, I tend to agree with much Ritter has to say about Iraq. The Bush admin is stating that at the very least the U.S. should go through with its militaristic plan against Iraq because if we don't we would lose credibility. James Schlesinger, former CIA director and Secretary of Defense, told the New York Times, "Given all we have said as a leading world power about the necessity of regime change in Iraq...our credibility would be badly damaged if that regime change did not take place." Well, of all the reasons to go to war, that has got to be the WORST possible one. Kinda like saying "well, that's a stupid idea but we've said it so many times, we've just got to do it." Going to war for "credibility" purposes has historically been disastrous, as evidenced by the results of Austria in WWI, Japan in WWII, and the U.S. in Vietnam.

I apologize for being so long-winded. This whole thing really bothers me. Zooropa, I am well aware of the risks of having a wife in the military...but I must admit it is never easy coming to terms with the fact that she could get deployed on a moments notice. It's especially troubling to me when I personally am against such action as I just don't believe it is justified. She is a soldier...she will serve her country admirably if called. It's interesting to note that the prevailing attitude in her unit is this Iraq thing is a big mistake...she says there isn't a lot of support for it...but at the end of the day they will do their sworn duty.

Again, I do believe that it is time for Americans to take back their country...to be that democracy of the people and for the people by the people. I encourage all U.S. citizens here to contact your elected reps in Washington and let them know you opose unjustified action against Iraq. The human and economic costs to this country are way to high.

P.S. joyfulgirl: thanks for posting Pilger's info for our consideration. I enjoyed reading it. Peace and love.
 
Mr SomeoneRobbie-
Maybe WE could send you over to Saddam, as a special Envoy to reason w him hold his hand..cuz he never reasoned too well w the United Nations Inspectors that Mr Kofi-sp sent over?;)
What do you think?
Could you help us w that?;)
Please let us know;)
DB9
:lol:
 
diamond said:
Mr SomeoneRobbie-
Maybe WE could send you over to Saddam, as a special Envoy to reason w him hold his hand..cuz he never reasoned too well w the United Nations Inspectors that Mr Kofi-sp sent over?;)
What do you think?
Could you help us w that?;)
Please let us know;)
DB9
:lol:

dear mr diamond (who uses too many smiles but remains cool):

Not sure how "diplomatic" I would be...maybe Bush can send your friend Bono...or maybe the King of Pop Michael Jackson...I hear he is a lover and not a fighter. :sexywink:
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

U2Bama said:
And also, Saddam kills 500,000 Iraqi children everyday (or whatever the figure is) so that he can blame it on the infidels/great Satans of the West (Bush Sr -->Clinton -->Bush Jr) and garner international sympathy. Apparently, his strategy is working.

~U2Alabama

Bama, I wasn't aware Saddam kills 500,000 children EVERYDAY! The whole country must be awash in corpses...it sounds like an international crisis. Haven't read this in the news anywhere. Could you provide some evidence of this. Possibly you made a typo?

Possibly what you meant was that Saddam's regime is (in your opinion) responsible for the death of a great number of Iraqi's over the last few years? I'm not trying to speak for you...just making an observation about your comment. I would disagree with that assessment. The international community widely acknowledges that U.S. and British economic sanctions have accounted for the majority of deaths in Iraq over the past 10 years. One could argue that the sanctions are Saddam's fault-thereby implying that he is responsible for those deaths you cited, but I reject that. Saddam may be an evil man, but he has posed no risk to the U.S. or his Arab neighbors since the Gulf War. (see Scott Ritter's comments about this from my previous post). Our sanctions are literally destroying the hopes, dreams, and lives of Iraqi's.

Throughout history, nations without a middle class have languished in poverty and hate under the rule of dictators. Our sanctions on Iraq have wiped out there middle class. If we here in the West want to endear ourselves to the Iraqi people than economic sanctions that destroy any hopes of their future aren't the answer. Hatred towards the West will prevail and dictators like Saddam will continue to exist until our policies empower the people of Iraq to seize the day. A rebuilding of Iraq's economy is necessary for the middle class to return to power...it is than that the Iraqi people will truly be able to overthrow the Saddam regime. True, all of this rebuilding of Iraq's economy doesn't fall on our shoulders...but the repeal of oppressive economic sanctions currenly crippling Iraq and responsible for countless, innocent Iraqi lives is a required step towards achieving that goal.

War is not always the answer...and who is to say that a war in Iraq, i.e. regime change, will provide a safer, more peaceful Iraq? Saddam may be a nuisance...but he isn't a threat to our sovereignty. We should be more concerned with the likes of Iran (who shortly will possess nuclear capabilities), India, and Pakistan. These countries are much more capable of causing the world great harm. How does one think Iran will react if we have a preemptive strike on Iraq? You gotta believe that Iran will feel threatened by the U.S. in such a case...Bush has already called them an "axis of evil". Iran's going to be sitting there thinking "Are we next?" Where does it all end? With a nuclear bomb...that we have threatened to use numerous times in our rhetoric? I believe it doesn't end...as long as Bush is calling the shots. The guy (I believe) wants perpetual war. Nothing would make him happier. It worries me. No exit strategy exists and a preemptive strike on Iraq has no justification under international or domestic law...and no one wants this war...except the Bush administration.

I pray that God shows Bush that there IS a better way...
 
On this day 12 years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait, August 2, 1990.


The reason to attack and change the regime in Iraq in 2002 is if we believe that Saddam is likely to supply sometime in the future, terrorist with weapons of mass destruction, to do damage in the USA far greater than what happened on 9/11. The question is how serious and likely is this threat? Have the risk of not doing this started to outweight the cost that an invasion would involve? Remember to think about the risk and cost of the use of weapons of mass destruction in a major US city. Also look at the possible attackers previous record in international actions. The true threat from Saddam is not his possession of such weapons but the possiblility that he would try to use them directly(unlikely) or indirectly. Saddam is a miscaculator, he may miscaculate that he could do harm and damage through a terror organization and get away with it, believing it could not be traced back to him.

As far as the sanctions, the UN figure on the number of deaths cannot not be confirmed at all. Remember, IRAQ is a POLICE STATE! Iraq only lets international media and organizations see things it wants them to see. It is there for impossible to attain any accurate estimate of deaths in Iraq since 1991! It is also impossible to determine of sanctions were a cause of death or if it was the government and military which control the distribution of goods and services throughout Iraq. It is in Saddam's interest to see the Sanctions lifted so he can use his oil money to rebuild his military which was largely destroyed in the 1991 Gulf War.

Another thing about the sanctions is that Iraq can sell as much oil as it wants to buy humanitarian supplies. While Iraq was primarily import dependent for most of its heavy military weapons, that was not so about all civilian goods and services. But in any event, they have Billions of dollars to use to buy more than enough food and humanitarian supplies under the watchful eye of the UN. In addition, Saddam has his own money which is used for the Republican guard and to build weapons of mass destruction. He also likes to build palaces and murals of himself all over this place. This is money that could be used for his people. Then there is the Black Market, that is alive and well. Saddam of course control much of this. Iraq's anual exports and imports have been back to the same level they were before 1991 for several years.

Bottom line here is, little accurate info can be gathered on the true condition of Iraqi civilians by Int. Organizations or media because of Saddam's Police State. Only the US military might have the capability to answer this question with spies or spy equipment. But even then it would be difficult to gather accurate info. Given that Iraq can buy the humanitarian supplies it needs(with UN approval) to take care of its people with its massive oil exports into the tens of Billions, the only reason people in Iraq are suffering is because of Saddam, who is creating their suffering to get sanctions lifted, by denying them goods. Saddam wants to rebuild his military and getting sanctions lifted is the first step.

There will not be a middle class in Iraq to threaten him unless Saddam allows it. Remember, this is a dictatorship and a Police State. It has been that way for over 20 years! The middle class could only defeat Saddam Hussain if they had the military capacity to defeat the Republican Guard which they have never had and do not have now, and can't have do to Saddam's Iron grip on the country.

An invasion and regime change in Iraq could be very stabilizing for the region given the massive problems that Saddam has caused(invading Iran and the 1980-1988 War, invading Kuwait, the use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and his own civilians, attacking Saudia Arabia with troops and Scud Missiles, attacking Israel with Scud missiles, and in 1987 attacking one of our frigates with an anti-ship missile, just to mention a few things). The US would have to stay there for the next 10 years in some capicity to rebuild the country and guard the security of the government, but this has been very successful in the past. Just look at Germany and Japan today, these are two of the most wealthy and democratic countries in the world thanks in large part to the efforts of the USA after World War II was over. Iraq can quickly rebuild itself because of the massive amount of wealth that it is already sitting on. One of the worlds largest known oil reserves. Most developing countries are not sitting on a pot of gold(oil) like Iraq. It is these funds that can pay for the war and reconstruction. These funds right now are not used by Saddam and only when he decides to buy humanitarian supplies. Get Saddam out of the picture, and within in 10 years, you'll have one of the wealthiest countries in the region. They even have the chance to beat Saudi Arabia do to extra resources like the Tigeris/ Euphrates river. Instead of being a destabilizing influence, Iraq could be a stabilizing influence and with US help easily guard against Iranian ambitions. In fact, with the more liberal and democratic stances growing in Iran now, democracy in Iraq could push that foward even faster. The bottom line is, when countries are defeated and taken over by the USA, it is actually a huge benifit since dictatorship is taken out replaced by democracy, US troops to help with security and massive funds to help in reconstruction from the richest country in the world. Again, look at what happened to GERMANY and JAPAN. Look at SOUTH KOREA, a poor farm country in 1950 is now a growing Asian industrial power.

But it is true that containment of the past 11 years has been very cost effective for the USA and the region. It may be so in the future. Of course if speaking about the interest of the Iraqi people, a US military invasion and regime change is in their best long term interest. The problem now is whether containment will continue to work in the future. Is the RISK of staying with just containment begining to outweight the COST of invading and changing the regime? That is not an easy question to answer, but if it is yes, then regime change should be done.

As far as international law goes, the 1991 Gulf War is not technically over do to Iraq's failure to 100% comply with all the UN demands that led to the Gulf War Ceacefire. Were technically still at war because they have failed to meet their obligations under the ceacefire terms.
 
STING2 said:
On this day 12 years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait, August 2, 1990.


The reason to attack and change the regime in Iraq in 2002 is if we believe that Saddam is likely to supply sometime in the future, terrorist with weapons of mass destruction, to do damage in the USA far greater than what happened on 9/11. The question is how serious and likely is this threat? Have the risk of not doing this started to outweight the cost that an invasion would involve? Remember to think about the risk and cost of the use of weapons of mass destruction in a major US city. Also look at the possible attackers previous record in international actions. The true threat from Saddam is not his possession of such weapons but the possiblility that he would try to use them directly(unlikely) or indirectly. Saddam is a miscaculator, he may miscaculate that he could do harm and damage through a terror organization and get away with it, believing it could not be traced back to him.

I understand what you are saying STING2 but I respectfully disagree. I don't believe the U.S. should be in the business of "preemtive strikes". There is no precedent for this type of action and it certainly undermines the foundation of international law. Also, I'm a big believer in our Constitution...that requires a Declaration of War from Congress before this type of action is taken. As I said earlier, the Bush administrations "preemptive strike" mentality is imperialist arrogance, imo. I still tend to agree with Scott Ritter's assessment that Iraq is not a threat to the U.S. or the Middle East. If the U.S. under the Bush admin adopts a policy of "preemptive strikes" who will be next??? Iran? North Korea? Pakistan? Surely those nations, some with nuclear capabilities, are wondering the same thing...and don't think for a second they aren't going to protect themselves if they sense an American preemptive strike. It's perpetual war...with a high human toll and unexpected results.

I'm of the opinion that the American public is largely ignorant of the potential ramifications of an attack on Iraq. They have bought into the spin of the Bush admin and those opposed to such an attack in the Congress have pooh-poohed their objections for fear of being labeled un-patriotic by the Bush political machine. No credible evidence exists of Saddam's capabilites...if it existed we would know about it. Where is the evidence?

Lastly, am I the only one who remembers during the presidential debates with Al Gore that Bush emphatically said he was against "nationbuilding?" I remember Bush criticizing the Clinton administration for this very policy. Yet, nationbuilding is exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan and are proposing to do in Iraq. So much for campaign promises...
 
LOVE MUSCLE said:
As Rob is aware, I don't mean to offend anyone with them.

That's probably the case.

I was a little girl when I spent one of my birthdays hiding in a basement due to shelling. In a small room of 3m x 3m, with 13 other people. We were there for 2 and a half days, and this is but one such example. I was a little girl when we saw Serb women decorating tanks that were heading for Bosnian villages. There are no words to express how disturbed I am by your pictures. You see the planes; I see the kids who will be hiding from them, and I see the adults they'll grow into and the struggles they'll have to regain their humanity and choose not to live vindictively.

Maybe you won't stop posting them, but you know what, it's something worth considering.
 
anitram said:
You see the planes; I see the kids who will be hiding from them, and I see the adults they'll grow into and the struggles they'll have to regain their humanity and choose not to live vindictively.

:(
 
anitram said:


I was a little girl when I spent one of my birthdays hiding in a basement due to shelling. In a small room of 3m x 3m, with 13 other people. We were there for 2 and a half days, and this is but one such example. I was a little girl when we saw Serb women decorating tanks that were heading for Bosnian villages. There are no words to express how disturbed I am by your pictures. You see the planes; I see the kids who will be hiding from them, and I see the adults they'll grow into and the struggles they'll have to regain their humanity and choose not to live vindictively.

Maybe you won't stop posting them, but you know what, it's something worth considering.

I just got a huge lump in my throat reading that chilling statement. How awful. Makes one really appreciate how good we have it here in the U.S...how ugly war can be...and how it affects the human psyche. I'm honestly speechless...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

Like someone to blame said:


Possibly what you meant was that Saddam's regime is (in your opinion) responsible for the death of a great number of Iraqi's over the last few years? I'm not trying to speak for you...just making an observation about your comment. I would disagree with that assessment. The international community widely acknowledges that U.S. and British economic sanctions have accounted for the majority of deaths in Iraq over the past 10 years. One could argue that the sanctions are Saddam's fault-thereby implying that he is responsible for those deaths you cited, but I reject that. Saddam may be an evil man, but he has posed no risk to the U.S. or his Arab neighbors since the Gulf War.

For this argument to work, you would have to argue that Saddam would not have been a danger to the US or his people or his Arab neighbors or Israel had the UN *not* implemented the sanctions, and this is not clear.

Okay, I just realized that there are way too many negatives in that sentence. Let me put it this way: I think there's a good chance that Saddam would have been causing trouble without the sanctions.


I pray that God shows Bush that there IS a better way...

I'm not sure what ideas you have, but I don't think Saddam's regime is going to go away without the use of force. Maybe the US could train a bunch of Iraqi guerrillas and send in a bunch of secret agents for an inside job.
 
Last edited:
anitram said:


That's probably the case.

I was a little girl when I spent one of my birthdays hiding in a basement due to shelling. In a small room of 3m x 3m, with 13 other people. We were there for 2 and a half days, and this is but one such example. I was a little girl when we saw Serb women decorating tanks that were heading for Bosnian villages. There are no words to express how disturbed I am by your pictures. You see the planes; I see the kids who will be hiding from them, and I see the adults they'll grow into and the struggles they'll have to regain their humanity and choose not to live vindictively.

Maybe you won't stop posting them, but you know what, it's something worth considering.


I am sorry you find this disturbing.

Your reference to shelling is caused by artillery, I did not post pics of artillery cannons/rounds but 2 airplanes that I see daily that really had nothing to do with your situation.

IMHO these aircraft are beautiful, magnificant and are a beacon of freedom to which I am a part of. As a dear friend of mine told me a couple of months back, "I am a part of this." And when telling him about how I love to sit by the runway sometimes and watch the aircraft take off he assured me that everytime they take off it is because of me. This friend of mine is a very wise man, and he is also a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army.

And I also want to point out that these aircraft are part of my religion. They are here to protect this country, and our allies against evil. I believe that christianity teaches us to protect one another, and to protect those who cannot defend themselves. Even if that means we lose our own life in the process. Some of us have put our own lives on the line on your soil to try and help you.

I feel for your situation, and I am sorry you had to go through that. We were born into this world without a choice of our past history. But we damn sure can make a difference in our future. I think it is reasonable at the least to say that in doing so these aircraft are going to have to head east.

I myself find many things in here disturbing. I could name you five signatures that I find nauseating, at the very least. I guess that is the cost of entering FYM.

Please do not take it personal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom