Why on earth would we want to "get out of this while saving face"? You speak as if we suddenly can't topple Saddam? This makes no sense, unless you have fallen under glynch's spell. Explain, please?
We have little "smoking gun" evidence and Iraq is cooperating for the most part. When all this started the White House expected that Iraq would 1. not allow full inspections 2. the inspectors would find much more evidence of Iraq's illegal weapons programs. If we go to war over the report today there will be major backlash here at home, the likes of which have not been seen since Vietnam. When the US mobilizes 150,000+ troops then pulls them out it makes us look really foolish.
What backlash? If this war is over in a matter of a few weeks - at most, according to a majority of analysts - no one will care. So the Dems & others will continue to not vote for Bush's dumb ass? So? Hell, it'll prolly send his popularity soaring. Backlash abroad? From who? The French? LMFAO! No one will impose sanctions on us. What it will do is create even more potential terrorists & make al Qaeda even more powerful. THAT is why this is so dumb. But instead we get marxist-freaks & Nation of Islam r****ds taking over the anti-war discussions. Would the anti-war people be out there if this was Clinton at the helm? Were they out there protesting when Clinton bombed the Serbs? When he was about to bomb North Korea? When he invaded Haiti? The last time he tried to kill Osama? When he launched a weeklong mini-air war vs Iraq a few years ago? Give me a freaking break! The anti-war movement has been hijacked by the far left & is being used to push every freaking marginal group's own little agenda. In the end the voices that try & point out the LEGITIMATE reasons for not going to war - not those that are pissed just b/c a Republican is at the helm - will not be heard & the fringe elements will turn the movement into a complete freaking joke.
No, no, no, my friend...we should just invade and take over every other country on Earth...what better way to remove all potential threats, real or imagined.
MSNBC NEWS SERVICES MELBOURNE, Australia, Feb. 14 — A global series of antiwar protests kicked off Friday with tens of thousands of people rallying here against any U.S.-led war on Iraq. Organizers said the protests, most of them set for Saturday, could make up the world’s biggest antiwar rally ever. Letz have a War...Lackbash
There were anti-war protests for many of Clinton's military actions, yes. Additionally, your analysis is off in that the "far left" disliked Clinton since he was too moderate and "Republican." This far left will generally protest any kind of war, regardless of the president. It is the moderate/middle left that is now often jumping on board because the president is Republican.
A cynic might think the administration will not pursue war this year, blaming the delays on the UN, France, Peacenik leftists, etc., so that it was too late to go in while the weather was cool. This leads to another whole year of war talk and alerts and no discussion or focus on the economy or other domestic issues. It also provides another year to gin up reasons for war--anyone notice the change of the pilot from the Gulf War from KIA to MIA-presumed captured? Then, we finally do go to war next year, just as the Presidential election gets underway. Yes, a cynic might think such a thing.
I agree with this a ton. I've pretty much grown to despise Bush but I am in favor of war with Iraq because it is completely obvious to me that Iraq is violating every resolution that is ever passed, including 1441, and just really has no intention of ever coming clean unless they're forced to with military action. Sending more inspectors doesn't do squat to judge compliance and cooperation, how stupid is France anyway? Bush however has just completely screwed things up from the beginning with these unilateral threats and what I feel are ridiculous insinuations in many of his speeches that Iraq is tied to 9/11 and is any more tied to Al-Qaeda than Iran or Pakistan who similarly have WMD. Bush's cowboy rhetoric has given France and Germany nothing to lose by blocking NATO or UN action. Hopefully the low was reached when Powell said that Bin Laden's new tape proves a connection to Iraq. The world wide laughter from that statement might have died down by now. They've just gone about things terribly so far.
If, to you, this is about upholding UN decisions, you should be aware of at least two points; 1) The United Nations definition of acceptable acts of self defense, written ( largely by the US ) in 1945, and upheld by the UN and US ever since states specifically that ' Pre-emptive action against another nation suspected to represent a threat does NOT qualify as self-defense, but would be classified as an act of aggression, and therefore be illegal.' This was writen and pointed to emphatically by the US and UN during the Cold War when the USSr would routinely ( raise your hand if this sounds familiar) decide that a smaller nation represented a threat to it's neighbours/allies, and respond by invading said smaller country under the guise of pre-emptive self-defense. In the face of UN protest, Kruschev etc. would ignore the outcries, usually claiming the UN to be biased or...yes, irrelevant. Is Bush going to banging his cowboy boots in session, one wonders... 2) Several nations, among them many allies, currently stand in violation of UN decisions, notably Israel and others. How can the United States pick and choose which UN dictates to 'uphold' with force, especially given that the UN itself has deemed such action currently not approved by said resolution? It's like you were to know of the Drug Trafficing propoert seisure laws, decide ( quite possibly even with justification) that your neighbour is trafficing drugs, go in and take over his propoerty when the DEA has told you that there isn't enough proof for them to get involved...and you claim that you do it in the name of the DEA.
Macbeth, a point I've wondered about is that it is openly admitted that our special forces troop have invaded Iraq for months. I believe this was openly discussed even before UN Res 1441?, which the legalistically inclined are trying to cite as the authhorization for immediate war. Was this invasion by special forces a violation of the UN Charter? I know it can seem unkind to raise this point, but still........
We went to the UN to gain support for the war, we did not get that support so we must wait. Increasing inspections are currently the best option. If we had substantial evidence that Iraq was smuggling weapons to terrorists, or was an imminent threat to our "allies" in the region then yes there would be grounds for war. We have yet to prove this is happening on a level that calls for invasion of a nation.
Yea...I couldn't believe how Powell listens to that tape and comes away from that with a gigantic leap that Bin Laden is now in partnership with Saddam and/or Iraq. Do you think we are stupid, Powell? That is NOT what was said and for you to get on your soapbox to make that kind of connection is not only laughable but stupid. Bin Laden made a one-sided proclamation that he and his followers were with the Iraqis and would fight the Americans. They are already at war with us. This does not even come close to what a partnership is. A partnership means they are operating together as one. It is obvious to me at least that Bush and his cronies are trying to establish that connection as a pre-cursor for war with Iraq. However, they are providing nothing but circumstantial evidence with no clear statements of fact indicating a partnership or cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If anything, they are giving them incentive to form a partnership by trying to make them look like they are together when they may not be. Only the facts, please. I don't know what a fact is to Bush and his administration. They show us a picture of a chemical site with trucks and want us to make a gigantic leap that this means they are moving chemicals or chemical weapons and cleaning the site. Sorry but I don't think anyone can say definitively that is what is going on. Would the Iraqis be stupid enough to do that during daylight knowing our spy satellites are above? Blix definitely had a point when he pointed this out in his UN statement yesterday. I believe that Iraq is playing games and lying. However, I don't believe everything Bush and his people are saying either. Unfortunately, I still think war is going to be the only way to disarm Iraq. However, I am not against delaying that while beefing up inspections in the name of peace. At some point, however, there is going to come a time when enough is enough. I just don't think were there, yet. Surf
Yea...I couldn't believe how Powell listens to that tape and comes away from that with a gigantic leap that Bin Laden is now in partnership with Saddam and/or Iraq Early on polls showed that at one time 2/3. recently I believe 1/2 of the American people think Iraq was involved in 9/11/ this near majority of the ignorant forms perhaps a clear majority of those in favor of this war. This ignorant large group has to be appealed to at all costs-- even at the cost of Powell's own dignity. Just good politics. They count on ignoring those who know better and get away with it. I think it is getting harder to mange the news, worldwide and that is proving a problem. We now have access not only to weekly or monthly progressive "rags" but to the resources of major newspapers such as the Guardian and Independent in Britain, with their reporters and daily publication. It's getting tougher for the war party , though they still control all the major tv networks and the vast majority of the US major dailies. A chilling yet amusing example was last night's ABC News. After reporting the debacle for the war party at the UN yesterday, which was so public that they couldn't spin it much, they trotted out an American hostage from Gulf War I, who said that he had finally decided to come forth and tell his story about how under duress he had signed some anti-American statements while being held captive 12 years ago. They also ran a lengthy story about what a maniac Sadam's son is. They actually displaced the usual stories about advances in medicine for the geriatric crowd that forms the bulk of their viewership.
Bush- Iraq has WMD Saddam- Iraq doesn't have WMD Where is the grey between these? It's either one or the other (WMD or not)
Couldn't agree more. And I think his "Axis of Evil" statement will go down as one of the biggest blunders in foreign policy by an American President in recent times. If the guy has a clue, he hides it well. I'm dreading the day that Colin Powell decides to resign for "personal reasons". He's one of the few advisers Bush has who's not just a political hack, imo. (I was called away for a little bit while typing this and now the thread is 2 pages. And I haven't read any of it except for the original post and Cohen's reply. Hope I'm not repeating something already said 6 times in the thread.)
Fire that jackass Rumsfeld and burn him in public effigy. We'd be halfway on the road to recovery... In the event that we should wait another year (apparently, those damn French want us to sweat our asses off in the event of war), there would probably be no more weapons to be found. But it doesn't mean Saddam does or does not have still them... On a side note, I bet the Cheney gang is coming out laughing out of this, since it was Powell's push for UN multilateralism, and now Powell's in the hot seat and on the UN grill because it's his responsibility to hold up the idea. All this in spite of the American comments from a high level diplomat who is incensing the majority of the world....
I have to agree with that also. Maybe there will be some positives from it (maybe it will spur Iran in the right direction politically), but overall much of the world saw it as a simplistic and overly-religious view of the world. I think it was a major loss for Bush's credibility abroad.
1) I don't buy this as so much self-defense but enforcement of a resolution that called for serious consequences. The French seem to think serious consequences which is written into 1441 is more time and more inspectors to judge compliance. France and Germany just don't want to enforce anything. They don't want war no matter what. If they found vx gas set to launch into Israel tomorrow they'd just say, look the inspections are working! Give me a break. 2) Consistency with Israel is obviously a huge problem. This is where Bush by buddying up with Sharon is just digging himself a hole. We must force Israel to abide by resolutions on the books because otherwise no one can really blame Muslim nations for looking at this process as a joke.
