If none of the Arab countries are going to support US efforts to attack Saddam and Iraq over the WMD(weapons of mass destruction) issue, then do you think we should be prepared to go it alone? If we go it alone, then don't we alienate the entire Arab world and turn them against us? I bring this up because of the summit and how Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are both now "getting along" with Iraq all of a sudden. Shaking, hugging, and laughing...doesn't seem like these Arab countries are much concerned about Iraq. Iraq is doing its best to see that they provide a united front against any US effort to garner support for an attack and subsequent overthrow. If the Arabs won't support it, then what reasons are we left with doing it. The main reason is the weapons of mass destruction issue but how will they ever use them against us? If they ever did anything like that against us or our allies, then we have the right to retaliate in full with our weapons of mass destruction. It would be pointless unless they want to cease to exist. It is also pointless for the US to think they can prevent countries from developing WMD by attacking to prevent such a thing from happening. Sooner or later....it's going to happen anyway. No amount of watchdogging and war can prevent that. My point is there is no way the US can attack Iraq and maintain friendly ties with Arabs. The after-effects of such an attack will be felt for decades to come. More terrorism will be the result; hatred of Americans will consume every Arab person. Only if Arab countries support it can we attack and even if they do...we still have Arab popular public opinion which will be nothing but hatred. Who knows what is going to happen? But, if and when we attack Iraq again, we better be ready to deal with years of repurcusions to follow. Short-sighted thinking is dealing with Iraq of WMD; long-sighted thinking is dealing with all Arab countries and the aftermath. Arabs seem to forgive other Arabs regardless of what happened in the past(see how their all making up now...even Kuwait and Iraq). Maybe if we were more focused on achieving peaceful dialogue rather than beating the war drums all the time....we would be better off. I don't see how bringing down Iraq is going to be good for stability in the region or secure our future any more than it is now....despite what our government may say. They don't really know IMHO. Before the Gulf War, we were in no position to dictate what Iraq could and could not do within their borders. When they attacked Kuwait and signed the surrender deal, then all of sudden it's our job and responsibility to see that they do not develop WMD even though they had them before 1991 and still have them today. Granted, they broke the contract they signed. Still, they did not attack us and that Gulf war wasn't much of a war. Reverse our positions and I bet we would be trying to secure our future by developing WMD. I think its ludicrous to assume Saddam is going to threaten the world with WMD. We have enough allies to back us up and we can even take care of ourselves in this regard. Plus, think of all the innocent Iraqi civilians were going to massacre in the process. No amount of justification of this collateral damage is going to appease Arabs. Maybe we should back off and try normalizing relations instead of continuing threats? I think it would do alot to better Arab opinion of the US. This whole thing about pre-emptive strikes to prevent what may or may not happen in the future....how does that work exactly? We can't tell the future so were going to work toward destroying in the present-day because were scared of what may happen? That's a load of crap IMHO. That is the best way to make more enemies. I dunno...I'm conflicted about the whole thing. What do you think? Be prepared to sacrifice many Americans if we choose the war path. And, in the end, you can't even guarantee a safe future after the war. It may destabilize the region even more. Surf
Surfguy: We do not have a choice in the matter. We have to do it. Allowing Saddam to simply develop nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and either use them against us, give them to terrorists, or use them to take over the ME is simply unacceptable. It is not an alternative. At any rate, take a look at who didn't attend the Arab League summit (and who avoided endorsing the Beirut Declaration on Iraq) - Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE, most notably. Coincidentally, these are our main "allies" in the region; Saudi is about to be put in that *other* category - we're withdrawing our troops and equipment from Prince Sultan and moving the command facilities over to Qatar... Cheney's mission wasn't the total failure made out to be in the press; do you think it's a coincidence that the very countries we want to back us against Iraq (or at least remain silent) are the very ones who suddenly couldn't make it to the long-awaited and highly trumpeted summit? They stayed away because he convinced them to cooperate on Iraq - or at least do nothing to oppose us. I wouldn't read too much into the Iraqis, Saudis, and Kuwaitis all of a sudden hugging, laughing, acting like buddies, etc. They do that at every Arab summit, much for the same reasons that our diplomats were always incapable of saying anything controversial or rude in public to any Soviet diplomats during the Cold War... That's just Foggy Bottom logic that rules international diplomacy, and is totally meaningless under the surface. The Brits will likely offer up some limited support as well. As for the rest of the world, we honestly do not need any support or assistance from them (especially our most vocal critics, the Euros). But that's all really irrelevant. We have no choice - we're going to do it. This one I have to address specifically, though: Uh... The presence or lack of Arab support is not a "reason", it is a condition - what are you getting at? At any rate, there is quite likely quiet (behind closed doors) Arab support for it - they do not like that ******* next door who's continually threatening them with invasion, terrorism, and WMD. They want him gone, too. As for how will they ever use WMD against us... Jesus, there are a thousand plausible scenarios that would leave no way to trace it back to him. Smuggling a nuke to Mexico, and then over the border to Houston - all evidence would be evaporated. giving a nuke, chemical, or biological weapon to Al Qaeda or one of the many other groups who want us dead, and letting them do the deed. Having a score of immunized Iraqi Intelligence operatives fly from airport to airport, releasing smallpox at every stop... There are plenty of ways we could be attacked and never have any idea of where it came from. But we would have out suspicions, of course... At any rate, he might simply use nukes (or the threat of nukes) to take over the Persian Gulf (and much of the world's oil supply). That simply cannot be allowed to happen either. As for the aftermath of an invasion of Iraq - short sighted thinking is thinking that it will only have negative consequences. On the contrary, if we remove Saddam and give Iraq democracy, then that combined with Iraq's inheerent secularism and level of technological and organizational sophistication will most likely make Iraq the shining beacon of hope in the Arab world - something the Arab world sorely needs, although they don't realize/won't admit it. If democracy won't work in Iraq, then it will never work anywhere in the Arab world, because only in Iraq right now are there conditions already existant that would make democracy feasible. If Iraq doesn't work, then nothing will.
The last thing the Saudis & Syrians (& to a lesser extent, the Kuwaitis) want is a pro-American secular democracy developed in either Iran or Iraq.
Well, kind of like I said...treeman....your basing your need to take action on a bunch of hypotheticals. I guess if everyone sees the worst case scenarios and says these things will happen even though they may not and may be reaching for reasons....then we will go to war. There is no direct proof of what your saying is true or will happen in the future. Your assuming based on Iraq's history it will happen. I'm not saying that's necessarily screwed up but noone here is Nostrodamus....either. I don't think you can solve every problem in the world by going to war and the repurcussions of going to war may create more problems than it solves. I agree that we will go to war...probably this fall. Hopefully, it will be over fairly quickly when Saddam realizes he can't win and is overpowered. Since it's his ass on the line, I think he will do as much damage as he can...especially against Israel.
