From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/23/ret.iraq.helms/index.html Helms: Military action against Iraq probable September 24, 2001 Posted: 9:11 AM EDT (1311 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraq probably will be a target of U.S. military action in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and American forces may be "right close" to such a strike, Sen. Jesse Helms told CNN. Helms, R-North Carolina, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's ranking Republican and former chairman, made his comments in an interview broadcast Saturday on CNN's Evans, Novak, Hunt and Shields program. "I don't think we're quite ready yet. As of Friday afternoon, we were not. But we're right close to it," Helms said. Asked if he thought Iraq would be a target, Helms said, "That depends on two or three things they are trying to work out, and I don't think they'll work them out. I think [Iraq] will be a target." Helms' comments come amid reports that, while the State Department favors a narrow response focusing on the al Qaeda organization based in Afghanistan, the Defense Department is pushing for a wider military response that would hit at terrorist targets in a variety of Arab countries, including Iraq. White House officials have brushed off reports of any internal divisions, emphasizing that the U.S. government stands unified. Helms said one of the goals of the U.S. war on terrorism should be to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, whose regime has stayed in power in the decade after the Gulf War. "The first President Bush ought to have gotten rid of him [during the Gulf War]," he said. "I say that with all due respect to the former president, but that was one of the major mistakes that was made at that time." Helms, who said he spent much of the last week in briefings with administration officials held in a secure room in the Capitol, also said "some of us have been guaranteed" that no military strikes would take place "until we are ready for it to happen because if we go in there with the wrong kind of preparation, that would be another disaster." "But we're pretty nearly there," he said. Helms said he also thinks it is a "waste of time" for Secretary of State Colin Powell to lobby China and Russia for their support in the U.S. war on terrorism. "China has demonstrated time and time again that they're not interested in working with the United States on anything," he said. "They are determined to do the best they can for China, regardless of the United States, and I haven't seen much better from Russia." This report is a few days old, as we now have full support from both Russia and China, but it is still interesting. This would explain why we've deployed so much......too much just for Afghanistan.
This report's old, but is still hammers the point home... It is absolutely pointless to take out Osama/Al Qaeda and still leave Saddam in power. Saddam has confirmed WMD, while bin Laden's WMD is only circumstantial. I'm just trying to think of a way to kill two birds with one stone. I have an overwhelming feeling that finding the answer to that question will tell me what the future holds...
One can only imagine the tremendous amount of tension and fear that these terrorists have just waiting for a strike that they know is coming at some point. Every leader in the Middle East is probably sweating bullets right about now.
Timing: I'd gamble that Saddam is quite pissed at Osama right now. Both of them have a death warrant now, and both will be served. It's only a matter of timing...
I love fiction. Actually, the fact that an old, retiring racist senator says we don't need to bother soliciting the help of China and Russia and that the first Bush should've gotten Sadaam should come as no surprise. However, his attitude is the very one that pisses people off. If we do attack Iraq, whether or not they are training terrorists, it will look to the rest of the world that Bush Jr. is trying to do what many thought Bush Sr. should have done. The fact that the Secretary of State seems to be winning his battle with the defense departments over the scope of a retaliation is a good thing. We have an opporunity to further relations across the globe and go after terrorists without the threat of it erupting into a massive global conflict. This SHOULD be a good thing.
on the week after the terrorist attacks iraq was bombed and about 10 civilians were killed. saddam is not at all related to bin laden. anyone can understand that. saddam is anti religion, his second hand man, tariq aziz is a roman catholic, he uses biological weapons on his own people. i certainly dotn' care to see saddam alive however i don't see how this will make anything better for te over 500,000 kids under the age of 5 that have died due to the sanctions on iraq and numerous millions that have suffered. of course i blame the corrupt, hypocritical, and every other negative adjective around to describe the saudi regime which at best only helps the 40,000 royal family members from the millions of saudis.
Once again, you fail to think logically. Problem #1: The civilians weren't targeted. Incidental civilian death is unavoidable Problem #2: Where are you getting these #'s? It's common knowledge that the Iraq government deliberately disseminates false information concerning casualties and domestic information Problem #3: Most of what you point out isn't relevant. Information has been found linking Iraqi operatives to operatives involved in the WTC attacks. Does it matter if bin Laden and Hussein disagree on philosophy, if the objective is the same? hussein, at least, seems imminently practical in some regards. Problem #4: How does the nature of Saudi Arabia's government apply in this situation? You seem to just tack on more information that vaguely sounds anti-status quo.
Hussien signed a peace agreement and has since failed to live up to it. If not sanctions, what action do you think the US should take? Anyway, Saddam and his troops don't seem to be going hungry, maybe he should try to look out for his own people.
saddam was supported by america all throughout the 80s when america was fighting the evil ayatollah... so why should iraqis have to suffer because of stupid brutal leadership which was helped from abroad? saddam shoulda been shot in the gulf war.
Well, I think I see a holy cow in that thar pasture... haven is actually beginning to understand why Saddam needs to be taken out? It is not impossible to stay liberal on social issues and still want to defend your country. I do that all the time. Odd how being a liberal in general but conservative on defense has suddenly become popular... Jeff: If Saddam is not removed from power (and his entire Ba'ath Party with him), then we have lost this war. If we settle for bin Laden alone, then we have lost. If we take out him and the Taliban, and call it a day, then we have lost. Saddam and his security/intelligence apparatus are far worse than either of those two threats. If they stay in power then we will be attacked again - by real WMD next time - and we lose. And they will do it effectively, unlike what many "experts" are saying - they have a number of ex-Biopreparat employees (Russians) developing dispersal techniques. Some even say that if we don't invade Iran and kill the mullahs, then we've lost. I don't know about that; I tend to think that they'll have their own revolution pretty soon (their demographics scream for it), but I am certain that we can't rely on old age to get Saddam...
Still, the biggest question is the one treeman stated earlier: how can we kill two birds with one stone? So far we have been incredibly fortunate to get such unilateral international support from so many countries in our coming fight with Al Queda/Taliban. And by support, I also mean the many countries who would normally give opposition are remaining silent. I think there is no doubt that the administration is waiting or looking for some way to wage a final war with the ruling party in Iraq and still keep the allies we have. Acting in self-defense after such a brutal attack as the one we have recieved is good enough reason in many eyes. But Iraq... can we attack them, or assasinate Hussein or whatever without breaking the coalition we've made? Does it matter?
