The countries that are supposed to sponsor terrorism don't have delivery systems capable of reaching the U.S. Even if Saddam had nukes right now, he doesn't have a delivery system capable of hitting the U.S.
I know. I am not talking about ICBM's. I am talking about someone with a bomb aboard a boat pulling into a harbor on the East Coast or someone crossing over the border with a bomb in a truck and driving into downtown Detroit/Chicago. If you have seen the movie "The Sum of All Fears" then you know what I am talking about.
Sonny, ok cool, thanks for the clarification. I guess if terrorists could do it then I would guess a port city. It might be hard for them to really smuggle it in. So I'll vote for NY.
I fear it's worse than all of this Saddam is likely to use every means at his disposal when we do attack him, so I suppose we'll find out just what kinds of dastardly things he has cooked up in the past few years. Patriot missiles that shoot down scuds have proven a myth, In fact they are a moral weapon against an anti moral weapon but if Saddam launches Scuds with bio weapons against Israel how likely are they to sit on their hands, like they did during the gulf war? Will the Saudies continue to ship oil to the U.S. if Israel is flying warbirds over their soil... I'm going out on a limb and saying NO an attack against Iraq could get really really ugly finances are a minor concern in the grand scheme of things, because once everyone is rallying around the flag, and the gov. starts buying stuff (smart bombs galore) the economy will benefit The Gulf war wasn't a great example of how the finances of this war will play out, (imo) the government was using what it had off the shelf the shelf is now empty, (thanks Bill!) and it's time for the *Republican Miltary Spending Spree* IMO it was time to give military spending a break when Bill took office, it forced the military contractors to tighten their belts (somewhat) and become more efficient but we're at war, with terrorists, eventually with Iraq, and we should be prepared for the worst... now is NOT the time to be looking at the checkbook
What do you think he should do? Urge them to launch a nuclear strike. Assuming they could ensure that all Pakistan's nukes were taken out in the first strike, yes. Since they cannot, no. Very good. Which is why we shouldn't wait until Iraq has NUKES. No. The US would be PREVENTING a country from acquiring nukes. And we are not talking about a PREEMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE on Iraq, either. Israeli planes do not have to fly over Saudi Arabia to get to Iraq. And they've already sent planes in before to bomb Iraq.
Well, while we are over there we could just tap into an oil line or two and fund this whole war on terror.
What happens if we remove Saddam and leave? No nation building, no occupation. Remove the main threat, which is Saddam and then leave.
Urging them toward peace is a great idea. But it doesn't follow the logic some people in the U.S. talk about when it comes to Iraq. After all if someone being a threat to a country is all the justification needed to strike, then India or Pakistan would be perfectly justified in striking. They might be able to. It depens on what kind of operations and weapons they used. I realize it's not a nuclear strike, but that doesn't mean people won't get killed, and all the horrible other things that happen during war. It's still a FIRST strike. Iraq's military is only about a third what it was during the Gulf War, and they weren't that big of a threat then. What's the purpose of Iraq attacking anyone? They know as soon as they do they will be wiped out. The only difference is that then there would be a little more justification than there is now. Stalin, Kruschev, and Mao, weren't the most stable oponents, and they had a lot larger military, but they were able to be contained. I can't believe that it's not possible to contain Saddam? I guess if the administration has that little faith in themselves, then maybe they should all just resign and let someone else who can handle the job step in.
Come on...this is apples and oranges....these guys were far more stable than Saddam. And we weren't questioning whether or not they had some part in an attack on our soil that left some 3000 dead, either. The containment of the Cold War was that we believed that the more arms we had, the less likely we were to get attacked. That analysis gets thrown out the window when martyrs are willing to die and sacrifice their families for their cause. Not saying that's what Saddam is, but it's certainly who he seems to be aligning himself with...and he has been quite willing to thumb his nose at us and the international community for quite some time now regarding weapons inspections. This whole situation is far more unstable than a Cold War scenario. First strike?? I'm not so sure...I'm not so sure the first strike wasn't felt on 9/11.
That's because Iraq is not a nuclear state, and Pakistan and India are not ruled by psychotic despots like Iraq. Yep, we should just send an envoy to Saddam and have them say 'can't you just be peaceful.' Except that they are nuclear states, which no matter how much you wish it weren't true, changes the equation. Exactly the reason Saddam wants nukes. No. They could not. They do not have the operational capability to do that. And... Hmmm, well they took over a neighboring country, so... If you were right then Saddam would not have attacked Iran or Kuwait. And Saddam could use nukes for blackmail as well. Kruschev was relatively stable. Stalin wasn't in charge of the nukes for long, and Mao had no intercontinental capability. In addition, unlike in Iraq, China was naturally checked by India in one direction, and the USSR in another. Likewise India is checked by Pakistan and China. The USSR was checked by NATO and China. WHO checks Iraq?
HayesStreet- I realize that Israel doesn't have to fly over Saudia Arabia to attack Saddam Israel is reponsible for putting Saddams budding Nuke program out of business but my point is Saddam is likely to do everything in his power to get Israel involved What, exactly, happens after Israel enters the frey? I don't think anyone knows the answer to that. He's been babbling on about how "any attack on Iraq is an attack on ISLAM" and so on in all the time he's had to prepare for this attack, one would think he'd have something up his sleeve in this area FranchiseBlade You do realize that the U.S. built up our forces over an roughly 6 month period during Desert Shield? it was a HUGE operation, the largest since WWII I believe the U.S. hasn't made any such movements yet, at least not on the scale required it is foolish to think Iraq's military is no longer a threat you may have a point, Saddam may never again act as the aggressor, Yes the U.S. can contain Saddam, we have for the past few years, but... it is reasonable to assume if Pakistan has them, Iraq won't be (2 years, 5?) too far behind The U.S. all but has a bullseye on Saddams head, what has he to loose? I guess we wait until a warhead explodes over Israel or in NYC Harbor
I've posted my opinion on this before in another forum but here it goes again... I don't think a war is going to happen. I don't even think that the administration intends to go to war. This is all just a big bluff to 1) get the weapons inspectors back in and 2) work on getting Saddam out. There may even be skirmishes and limited attacks on facililties that are weapons plants but I really don't believe we will actually invade. There are just too many negatives and uncertainites. For example, who is going to rule after Saddam (we've seen how that can go wrong)? How long will we occupy the country? I don't think we are prepared to hold Iraq for any length of time especially without international support. It just doesn't make any sense. The only way it could happen is if we had positive evidence that Saddam had nukes and we shared that evidence with our allies. But if that were the case then they would be on our side, wouldn't they? For this bluff to work, the entire world, especially Iraq, has to believe it which means we will probably mass troops somewhere in the vacinity. Bush is the perfect president to try to pull this off as he is developing a reputation for doing what he believes is right for the U.S. regardless of world opinion plus he's got the whole "finish what daddy started" vibe going. The protests from the international community and Congress are perfect as they lend credibility to the threat. Recently there have been headlines about Iraq accepting weapons inspectors and starting negotiations. Saddam is scared that he's about the get bounced. Normally negotiations with Iraq are useless because Saddam will say anything but if he truly believes that the U.S. is coming after him I believe that he'll do whatever it takes to save his skin - even if it means taking is billions and leaving the country.
Even if he did have them, I still think he could be contained. Those country's had ICBM's nuke warheads, and they were contained.
Hey I have a great idea to make America safe from terrorism. Let's launch a war against virtually the wholeArab world from our only ally, Israel. That should make us just as safe from terrorism as Israel is!! This would please Israel and the Jewish neocons around Bush, but it certainly makes Americans less safe from terrorism. Time to have an American foreign policy for Amerians first, not Israel fist. It is not in America's foreign policy interests to align ourselves with the Sharon wing in Israel. Hey come on call me anti-semitic. If you oppose the right wijng poicies of Sharon you are now anti-semitic
Israel has been trying for 20 years to get the U.S. to go to war against the Arabs and Iran, knowing this will permanently enlist America's vast wealth and power in its cause, and permanently alienate the U.S. from the Islamic world. If ever the United States needed real friends, it is now. And real friends like Canada, Germany and France are trying to deter the empty, misguided George Bush and his hijacked cabinet from committing an outright aggression that risks plunging the Mideast into chaos, or even nuclear war. From an interesting article on how the US under Bush II is getting into a disasterous war which Bin Laden and Sharon both have wanted for a while. Sharon, BinLaden and Iraq
Glynch, The only reason to support Israel is that the US needs a place to stage troops in the ME in case of war. One thing we learned in WW2 was that without our ability to mass troops in England we would not have been able to get the Germans out of France and the rest of Europe. Israel is a beachead, and needs to be supported. However, we do not need to blindly support them, if they are part of the problem, then start taking away the cash. This is a clash of civilizations, my way vs your way, and hopefully we can end it with a minimum of bloodshed. No one wants WW3. I have the solution, just get those Hydrogen cars running and the world will not need all that oil. DD
This potential war is looking uglier and uglier... As discussed before, if Israel enters the fray, who knows what Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab nations will do. If Israel were to be part of the occupation of Iraq, it would jeopardize every Arab nation in the central Middle East. While the Arabs might not want to fight, they might decide that they have no choice but to enter the fray themselves. Other potential problems of this war are that America has nil support internationally (as discussed), and America cannot just nuke Iraq to hell. This will no doubt be a ground troop invasion. First of all, the war might seem like a good idea now because the public support is so high, but a lot of things can change between now and November. Also, Iraq knows that United States is going for the throat this round, and the soldiers and citizens might not quit as easily as the Gulf War (they'll only be left with the choices of being occupied by Western Capitalist pigs or defend themselves). If Saddam can rally the citizens to fight for them, and they are to implement guerilla warfare successfully, the troops will have no choice but to kill citizens as well. Once news of the killing of citizens reach all of Iraq, other citizens will definitely get involved just to protect themselves (the miracle of propaganda, something Saddam does really well). Afterwards, Iraq will be a different animal since America has to fight both Iraqi citizens and soldiers. If there are two things that I have learned in history classes, it would be: 1) A country cannot liberate another country if the citizens of that other country don't want to be liberated. 2) A country cannot fight a war if the citizens of it's own country don't support the war. All it takes is a Walter Cronkite-type journalism (especially if there will be killing of citizens) to reach the U.S. to drain the mighty public support we have now. The world is a much smaller place now with information so easily accessible, the journalist(s) don't even have to be American(s). That was the worst case scenario, but in order for America to win this, the key would be to be quick and decisive. The longer the war drags on, the less chance America has to win. If the war can be won within 3 months, none of those scenarios above apply. However, if the war drags on, and Saddam proves to have some tricks under his sleeves, Iraq just might have a chance to defend themselves, and America be left with a disaster.
The minute Israel become a beachhead, the minute the other Arab nations join in the fray. Strategically, if Israel were to occupy Iraq, they would put countries like Syria and Jordan in danger because Israel now would have two fronts to invade from. It's questionable whether Israel has pure expansionist aspirations, but our opinion matters little. After the atrocities Israel has committed on the Arabs, I don't think they will take an Israel occupation too lightly in Iraq. They can view this like the Schleiffen Plan where Germany invaded France from both the Eastern and Western front. I don't think the Arabs will let Israel be in that postion. One can argue that America has no intention of letting Israel touching Iraq, but once again, our opinions matter little... If country B decides to help country A to fight a war, country B would be expected to be rewarded. Arabs know that, and the price of an Israeli occupation of Iraq would be too high. Unless U.S. can politically negotiate with the Arab nations to maintain neutrality, this is a no-win situation.
