To present the case now and whip up support and then wait 6 months would be the stupid course of action. Why? With the current setup, you have all sorts of important people denouncing the Iraq plans and drumming up more and more support against it here in the US and worldwide. When you finally present the positive case, you'll get some of that support back, but some people will then be entrenched against it. If you present the case NOW, then those same important people are drumming up support for an attack. It's always important to build your case as early as possible, not only to build the strongest possible case, but also to put pressure on Iraq and develop alternative scenarios in case you don't get the support you want. For example, why not get Saudi Arabia on board NOW if you can, so that you can plan your war operations around using their land instead of having no clue where you'll be able to launch an attack from?
They are already on board. They have significant business interests in helping out the US. They'll talk a bunch of rhetoric to placate their Arab neighbors...but when push comes to shove they'll let us use their land.
They are already on board. They have significant business interests in helping out the US. They'll talk a bunch of rhetoric to placate their Arab neighbors...but when push comes to shove they'll let us use their land. When Britain is waffling, Congress isn't even on board, and key party leaders aren't even supporting it, I think it's dangerous to assume any other country is on board at this point. That's my main concern. Perhaps you're right that they are quietly on board, but I find it hard to believe any other country is going to support an action that our own country is still fractured on.
One of the cornerstones of Bush's foreign policy, when he ran, was that we would not be the policemen of the world, that we could not go to war out of moral imperative, and that there would have to be a clear and present danger to our national security, in order to justify putting our troops in danger of dying. His people are now saying it is a moral imperative to remove Saddam. They WERE saying he was involved in 9/11. They WERE saying he would definitely obtain nukes if he went unchecked. They are no longer saying these things. They were questioned on them, and they've virtually backed down. Now they're back to "moral imperative." Rice's words on the Sunday talk shows. The point of this thread was that leaders from Bush's own party have raised serious concerns, and they are going unaddressed. This is a crisis of credibility for this president, at a time when his credibility is most vital to our national security. Scowcroft has even warned of Armageddon. And the best, and only, argument (other than 'moral imperative') is that it would set back the war on terrorism if Bush went back on his word to oust Saddam. Even the biggest Saddam haters have to admit this is a crock of a reason to send American soldiers into harm's way. If we're going to wait six months, don't float the trial balloon, inspire even those closest to you in ideology to warn publically that this will be a disaster, and then fail to present arguments (other than Bush losing face) to the contrary. It is not only folly -- it is downright dangerous.
I came so close to starting a thread titled 'Is Batman Jones For or Against War With Iraq', but I decided to let it be. Refman, doesn't it appear to you that this is a major priority for the Bush administration? I would think that while he's getting hammered left and right about our policy on Iraq, he wouldn't intentionally look like an idiot in the news for 6 mos., and then say 'voila, here's the Ace of spades'. If he's any sort of leader, he'll lead the conversation right now. If the facts are on his side, he'll share them, because the conversation is going on right now. Right now the agenda looks silly... and to be honest, without having some just cause to attack Iraq, I think we'll look about as noble as terrorists.
Batman, you once again have challenged me on the issues using a methodical, rational argument. That's why I respect you. You have raised major concerns. If Saddam, in fact is not close to having weapons of mass destruction then I would be much less favorable to an attack. Nukes are not the only thing on the table. Saddam has intimated that he would be willing to equip terrorists with chemical weapons. We KNOW he has those. I'm not big on this whole "moral imperative" theory of war. It is a weak argument. Personally, I think Bush needs better advisors in this regard. If I were the one writing the speeches it would be something like this: "Saddam has indicated his willingness to share his chemical weapons with terrorist groups. This cannot stand. Action must be taken. We know that he is working on nuclear weapons. We don't want to find out if he'll share those. We as a nation must take action because other can't...or won't." It's a rough draft...I'd polish it up first. Question for anybody who wishes to answer...if Saddam has chemical weapons he is willing to give to our enemies, does that not make a preemptive strike acceptable? Batman...thanks for pointing out the members of my party of choice who are showing dissent. An accord must be had somewhere. I think the answer to all of this will be bipartisan with members of each party suprising you as to their opinion.
I think it doesn't make a unilateral invasion acceptable. I would rather the U.S. work with all of our allies, to try and restructure the sanctions, take actions to fight the terrorists that would use those weapons. I think we stand a better chance acting with the world community, than against it. We had the world's sympathy and willingness to really combat terrorism. These plans of invasion against Iraq are eroding that coalition, and hurting our future efforts to combat terrorism. It might take longer than an invasion, and we should continue to contain them and keep them locked in tightly the way they are now. We contained the Soviet Union, and are still here to talk about it. They supplied various groups opposed to us over the years and we supplied groups opposed to them. I think if we contained the Soviet Union which had way more weaponry and systems than Iraq could even dream about, we should be able to contain Iraq.
Question for anybody who wishes to answer...if Saddam has chemical weapons he is willing to give to our enemies, does that not make a preemptive strike acceptable? I think absolutely so - and I think much of the world would (maybe reluctantly) support us in such a scenario. Given that this was one of the conditions from the UN peace agreements in 1991, I don't see how the world could *not* support us in this scenario primarily because of the UN agreements. But this all goes back to Bush making the case that this is true, which he refuses to do for whatever reason.
I'd hate to have to act AFTER chlorine gas was released in downtown LA just so we wouldn't go it alone. The Soviets didn't have large groups of religious zealots working with them underground...Iraq does.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-373053,00.html It looks like Major is on board for the attack on Iraq. Notice this is on August 3. I don't really think the Palestinians are our enemies, but some of their splinter groups would love to give that stuff to al-Queda. This is a real and serious problem.
I would too. But I'm not convinced that is a threat from Saddam. I mean we have chemical and biological weapons here in the U.S. Saddam has had those weapons and we haven't been attacked with them yet. Iran has. Iran is also against the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It's really poor statesmanship that can even come close to making friends out of Iraq and Iran. But the Soviets had many ideological zealots working for them, and Iraq doesn't. Also again the Soviets had more to back their ideological allies than Iraq does. I'm also not sure how many religious zealots are working for Iraq. The country has a completely secular govt. One of Saddam's top administration members is actually Christian. Many of the terrorist groups have previously been anti-Saddam because he wasn't religious enough. Prior to 9-11 Saddam had a price on the head of Bin Laden.
It looks like Major is on board for the attack on Iraq. Notice this is on August 3. I don't really think the Palestinians are our enemies, but some of their splinter groups would love to give that stuff to al-Queda. This is a real and serious problem. The problem here is that we have conflicting reports. No doubt we've heard that Iraq has all this stuff. But then on the other hand, we hear members of the US Intelligence say that there's no evidence whatsoever of this. This is why I want a clear case made by Bush with the evidence that we have. The next step would then be building an international coalition - which I believe would be both possible and not too difficult with clear information - and then attacking.
They could be saying there is no real evidence if: ...revealing evidence of actual facilities also reveals either 'on the ground' assets or technology (even revealing to Congress will involve inevitable leaks). ...revealing evidence of actual facilities allows Iraq to relocate again, making the evidence useless and weapons harder to track. ...being unable to inspect Iraq means there is no way to provide conclusive proof of weapons production. Seems like there is enough circumstantial evidence to determine that Saddam has in the past and continues to pursue a full range of WMD options. Politicians and generals who are really politicians generally like to 'cover their asses,' which may explain backtracking. Saddam will inevitablely become infinitely more dangerous after he acquires nukes. On the 'inflame the Arab world' side of things... If Iran is moderate, and not really a threat, then would new fundamentalist regimes be a threat to us? If we invaded Iraq and the current regimes fell in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Egypt, would we be any worse off? And if you think we would then the question is do you consider fundamentalists to be the enemy?
