Gallup Poll, Saddam, and other matters. (no US bashing!)

[BeardofPants]

From News Services

Published Aug 9, 2002
IRAQ09

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein warned Thursday that any forces that attacked his country would be "digging their own graves." His speech was dismissed by the Bush administration and viewed with pessimism by the U.N. secretary-general.

"The forces of evil will carry their coffins on their backs, die in disgraceful failure, taking their schemes back with them, or digging their own graves," he said in a national address on the anniversary of the end of the 1980-1988 war with Iran.

The Iraqi leader's televised address -- an appeal to audiences both at home and abroad -- was his first public response to the recent growing threat of military confrontation with the United States.

The Bush administration has threatened to use military force to oust Saddam, who has barred U.N. weapons inspectors from returning to the country. Iraq remains under tight U.N. sanctions until inspectors certify Saddam no longer has chemical, nuclear or biological weapons or the missiles to deliver them.

Despite ongoing negotiations with the United Nations over the experts' return, Saddam's 22-minute speech made no reference to them. Instead, the Iraqi leader called for the U.N. Security Council to answer a list of 19 questions.

Iraq submitted the questions to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in March when talks began on the possible return of inspectors. The talks have since collapsed, and the Security Council, where the United States holds veto power, has issued no response.

The Iraqi leader also repeated his call for the U.N. "to honor its obligations" to lift sanctions. They were imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, eventually touching off the 1991 Gulf War.

Annan, who has met with Iraqi officials three times since March, said Thursday that the Iraqi government hadn't given "an inch" toward meeting U.N. demands for the return of the inspectors. "I don't see any change in attitude," he said.

There have been no inspectors in Iraq since 1998 when, complaining of a lack of cooperation from the Iraqis, U.N. inspectors left just ahead of allied airstrikes to punish Iraq for blocking inspections.

Iraq maintains that it has fulfilled U.N. conditions.

The Iraqi leader did not mention any country by name in his speech, but the Bush administration said that his comments were obviously directed toward the United States.

The administration dismissed the speech as insignificant, with State Department spokesman Philip Reeker calling it "bluster from an internationally isolated dictator, demonstrative yet again that his regime shows no intention to live up to its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the speech did not alter President Bush's view of Iraq. "The Iraqi government needs to comply with the responsibilities it agreed to at the end of the Gulf War," McClellan told reporters covering Bush's stay in Crawford, Texas.

"The president has not decided on a particular course of action," he said, referring to widely reported plans by the United States to remove Saddam from power. "We will consult with our friends and allies, as well as Congress, as we move forward."

One prominent congressional Republican struck a cautionary note Thursday. House Majority Leader Dick Armey said the United States should not attack Iraq without provocation.

Bush has left little doubt that he would like to oust Saddam, but he has not decided what to do. Support in Congress is mixed, and Armey said that an unprovoked attack against Iraq would isolate the United States.

"If we try to act against Saddam Hussein, as obnoxious as he is, without proper provocation, we will not have the support of other nation states who might do so," Armey, R-Texas, said while campaigning in Iowa for the state's GOP congressional candidates.

Armey said he did not consider the Iraqi leader's refusal to allow weapons inspections sufficient reason to attack. The Gulf War was a different story, he said, because Saddam had moved beyond his own borders.

Opinion poll

Two-thirds of Americans want Congress to play a role in any decision about military action against Iraq, says a new CBS News poll, although they agree with an eventual attack on Iraq.

About the same number of the poll's respondents said they believe the United States needs to wait to build support with its allies before acting against Iraq. People were about evenly split on the question of whether removing Saddam is worth the potential loss of life and other costs.

The poll of 832 adults was taken Tuesday and Wednesday and has margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The poll also found that:

• Republicans thought Bush should get congressional approval by a 60-38 margin, Democrats felt that way by a 76-22 margin and independents by a 74-24 margin.

• Republicans felt by a 62-31 margin that Bush should wait to build support with U.S. allies before attacking Iraq, Democrats felt that way by a 67-23 margin and independents by a 72-20 margin.

• Republicans said by a 64-26 margin that the removal of Saddam was worth the cost, Democrats said by a 52-37 margin that it was not worth it, and independents were split on the question.

I'd be quite interested to hear some thoughts regarding this poll, and the surrounding events. What do you think are the Bush Administrations reasons for a potential attack on Iraq/Hussein? Would US might succeed against guerilla warfare, or would this be another vietnam? Are there other options? etc, etc. Please, don't try and drag this down into a US (or otherwise) bashing thread; I am interested to see what some of the US 'mooters (and others) have to say regarding this affair, NOT in causing another negative thread.

Mods, feel free to close it, if it gets heated. Thanks.

[Sween]

Well bush is doing the right thing eventually after god knows how many years. His dad made the mistake many years ago of not finishing the job. Bush is just tieing up lose ends. Margrate Thatcher wanted to get sadam or kill him at the time but george decided against it. That how these conflicts end by getting the man at the top not just leaving him to try and build his power up all again.

As for it turning into another vietnam it very doubtfull that would occur for the simple reason of geography. Vietnam is a jungle country whilst Iraq is mostally desert. Gorrial warfare is not suited to Iraq as theres no where to hide. Im not so sure a full scale millitary operation is required you know. I think that a carefully planned extraction of sadam is all thats needed. Take away there leader and they will fail.

[Cirdan]

Guerilla warfare is not limited to jungles. There is also urban guerilla warfare. I would imagine that any occupation would be easy to get into and difficult to get out (think West Bank). It is far more efficient to use the threat to force inspections to be allowed again. Hussein will fall eventually, however there is no clear opposition party but rather a "anti-hussein faction" that is only unified in their opposition and would part company as soon as Hussein is toppled.

Nothing is as simple as it ought to be.

[azalea]

It's very sad, because I DON'T think toppling Saddam is worth the loss of life, BUT if he isn't and "they" are right that he is building weapons of mass destruction, then the loss of life will be much greater in the future if he uses them. I think the US does need to put more of the responsibility for this in the hands of the UN, while pledging to use all available resources for the purpose of supporting whatever action they deem necessary. By putting it in the hands of the UN, the US can hopefully escape becoming the Big Bad Guy in the eyes of many around the world. If we continue to be seen as evil in their eyes, we will continue to have problems with terrorism. If the UN is the one acting, we can still use our power, but it won't be us giving the orders.

[jerseydevil]

I agree that Bush should consult with Congress. Congress has been meeting for months and Bush is starting to meet with them. Constitutionally only Congress can declare war (although presidents have been able to get around this since the Korean War). The US has not been in a declared war since WWII. Congress has held talks and we are in an "unofficially" declared war on terrorism. In order to really generate support with American people - Congress MUST be consulted on military actions.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- While slightly more than half of U.S. residents feel they understand why the Bush administration is considering military action against Iraq, many Americans still need convincing that an attack is necessary, according to a CNN-Gallup Poll released Friday.

Fears of biological and chemical weapons or of terrorist acts were most often cited by those polled as the reasons the United States should attack Iraq .

The poll of 1,007 adults showed that 56 percent believe they have a clear idea of why an attack against Iraq is being considered. Forty-four percent of those surveyed August 5-8 said they don't clearly understand.

Of the 590 people who said they understood the U.S. considerations, almost one-third said the United States is considering attacking Iraq because of its weapons of mass destruction, while another 30 percent said it is because of the possibility it could back terrorist attacks.

Sixteen percent said the reason is simply to remove Saddam Hussein from power, 13 percent gave the broad reason that Iraq is a threat to the United States, and 6 percent cited Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspections.

........

The Bush administration contends that Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons -- some of which it has used against its own people -- and is in the process of developing nuclear weapons.

The United States turned down a recent offer from Iraq for members of Congress to examine sites where they believe weapons of mass destruction are being produced, and the United Nations turned down Iraq's offer of talks on the possible return of the inspectors.

Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters the sanctions have been in place so long, they are no longer working.

"Not just in the case of Iraq, but I believe historically, once they're applied, they're effective for a reasonable period of time, and then they tend to be eroded," he said.

He said that happens for a lot of reasons. "People decide they don't agree with them anymore, and they start trading. People figure clever ways to get around them with dual-use technologies. People do it illegally across borders, and these are porous borders.

"And it is very clear that the political and economic sanctions have, with respect to Saddam Hussein, not worked."

Rumsfeld and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice are expected to meet with President Bush next week at his Crawford, Texas, ranch to discuss how best to deal with Hussein and the threats they believe he poses.

Congress also has held hearings on the issue.

The administration has said repeatedly that its goal is to remove Hussein from power, a policy that was approved by Congress in 1998, called the Iraqi Liberation Act.

"It is the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," Rumsfeld said. He said he didn't know what prompted the legislative action.

"I assume it had to do with him trying to impose his will on his neighbors. I also assume that it's because he's [Iraq] been elevated to the status of a terrorist state."

Rumsfeld was asked about a warning Thursday from House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who said the United States should not initiate an attack on Iraq without provocation.

"Dick Armey's a fine congressman and a good friend," the secretary said. "And I think it's important for people to say what they think on these things. And that's the wonderful thing about our country. We have a public debate and dialogue and discussion on important issues."

Comparing the possibilities in Iraq with Afghanistan, Rumsfeld said, "Afghanistan is a model of what can happen when people are liberated."

"Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if Iraq were similar to Afghanistan?

"If a bad regime was thrown out, people were liberated, food could come in, borders could be opened, repression could stop, prisons could be opened. I mean it would be fabulous."


Many Americans unconvinced about Iraq attack

This is one reason why getting Congress involved in the decision process is so important. Congress members can go back to their constituents and explain why or why they do not support attacking Iraq.

I don't necessarily think we need the FULL support of the international community. Bush has been meeting with the various leaders and I know that Tony Blair is sticking his neck out by saying that he would go along with an attack on Iraq. Germany and France are completely against it (at least without it being sactioned by the UN). But when isn't France generally against what America does?

On Tuesday, Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac cautioned that they could not support a U.S. assault on Iraq without a United Nations mandate, which U.S. and British officials argue is not legally necessary.
German leaders warn on Iraq attack

According to another CNN.com article that the SPD slogna is "We go our own way".

SPD General Secretary Franz Muentefering said even if Germany were not involved in an attack, a war would do more damage to its sagging economy, adding that the SPD's campaign slogan "We go our own way" also applied to foreign policy.

German leaders warn on Iraq attack

Obviously Germany doesn't think it's in their best interest to go to war with Iraq. But again I state (as in other threads) - just because it may not be in their best interest - doesn't mean that the US doesn't view it as in our best interest. And just like Germany - "We go our own way" if necessary.

Azalea - what is the UN going to do? First most people - especially the Middle Eastern countries feel we control the UN. So their just going to view it as the US anyway. Our own military is going to be used BUT then will be taking orders from an outside organisation. OUR militray reports FIRST to the AMERICAN people - not to some international body such as the UN. It was the US that was fighting for Smart Sancation with Iraq - in order to help the Iraqi people. Russia was one country that was againt - but most people still report in the international community that "OUR" sanctions are hurting the Iraqi people.

I'm really hoping that Rumsfield's statements about Afganistan don't come back to bite him. For one thing - Afganistan may be a lot better off than they were - but the situation there isn't all roses. If the President of Afganistant is assassinated then what happens then? Who takes over? Does that throw the entire country into anarchy again?

Bush Consulting Congress on Iraq: Bush Says He's Consulting Congress, Allies About Iraq; Iraq Opposition Leaders Talk to Cheney - ABCNEWS.com

WACO, Texas Aug. 10 — President Bush said Saturday he is consulting with Congress and U.S. allies about Iraq and he branded Saddam Hussein "an enemy until proven otherwise."

Bush reaffirmed that he has no timetable for deciding on a military strike against Iraq or "for any of our policies in regard to Iraq." He said he spends much time discussing U.S. options with his principal policy advisers; a decision may not come this year.

.......

Bush made clear, as he has done in public speeches, that he has many tools to help the United States deal with Iraq.

.......

U.S. officials in Washington recalled after Friday's meeting with the opposition leaders that Saddam used poison gas against Iraqi Kurds in 1988 and sent troops into the Kurdish areas in 1991 to put down an uprising shortly after the end of the Persian Gulf War.

In the event of any additional attacks on the Kurds, the United States would respond, said an official, who agreed to discuss the situation only on grounds of anonymity.

The U.S. officials said the Iraqis made no request for military aid or training. They said the U.S. side was struck by the conviction of each of the Iraqi leaders to fight for a democratic Iraq and for the establishment of the rule of law.

Sween - I agree, Vietnam and Iraq would be completely different. For one thing - after the US was attacked we our more afraid of biological and nuclear weapons getting into the wrong hands and being used. My post office (the Hamilton Post Office, where the anthrax letters were processed from) is still closed almost a year after the attacks. Do we want to wait until until possibly tens of thousands die in a biological or chemical attack on the NY subway - go through the whole process of months of investigations to determine it was Iraq before acting? If we do and it does happen - it'll be the whole 20/20, hindsight, "why wasn't something done before?" reaction.

We know Hussein is a madman - he used chemical weapons on his own people for god's sakes. Do people really think given the chance he wouldn't use them on France, England, the US given the chance? Or that he wouldn't supply them to terrorist groups? Do people realise what a hit to the world economy there would be if another major attack is successful? He's just biding his time right now. He doesn't want an attack right now because he's not really prepared. I DO FEEL he will attack without provcation though or supply a terrorist group weapons to attack a western country. He just wants the time and place on his terms.

Concerning not going after Hussein. The only reason why Bush didn't continue on with pursuing Hussein and removing him from power is because the coalition was falling apart. After Iraq was removed from Kuwait - most people felt the war was over. The US went through the UN to get weapons inspectors, set up sanctions and so forth against Iraq. Well we see how effective the UN has been with that. Now the decision needs to be are we going to finish off what should have been done before? Many Americans I think felt after the Gulf War that we would have had Hussein assinated (even though the US government does not openly support the assination of world leaders).

Cirdan -

I agree - city warfare is not the easiest. Hopefully we can avoid that. But it proves that Hussein will go to all lengths to protect himself and can care less about his own people - let alone anyone else in the world. He would rather hide behind woman and children and give their lives up.

If it comes to city warfare - I think the US will be using a lot of special forces and clandestine operations to carry out the operations. I just hope that CNN and the rest of the American media - or even the world media - can keep it's mouth shut about strategy and what's going on so more of our miitary personnel don't get killed. I feel we have a right to know what's going on - but not a step by step analysis as it happens - while the enemy watches everything we do off our own satelites and news organisations.

[Cirdan]

The justifications used in a possible attack on Iraq could be made for numerous nations. Are we going to invade them all? There has been little to differentiate the terrorist support in Iraq from that of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan, Lybia, North Korea, Indonesia, China and others.

The truth is that the Iraqis have no delivery vehicles capable of reaching the US. None of the allied forces that joined in Desert Storm are willing to participate. The likelyhood that the regime could be toppled by other means is growing. More US citizens have been killed by Pakis than by Irags in recent years. Why don't we invade them? War should always be the last resort, otherwise we are just like every other despotic militarist empire that ever came and went.

If you want to see the world economy disrupted then let the Middle East situation turn into a full scale regional war. I would contend that the focus on Iraq is a family issue with Bush. Iran, one of the world's largest oil producers is buiding 3 breeder reactors with the help of the Russians. Why do you think that is? Are we going to invade Iran or Russia because they may/do have weapons of mass destruction? Are we so fearful that this tin-pot dictator is actually a threat to us? Pulease

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The justifications used in a possible attack on Iraq could be made for numerous nations. Are we going to invade them all? There has been little to differentiate the terrorist support in Iraq from that of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan, Lybia, North Korea, Indonesia, China and others.

The truth is that the Iraqis have no delivery vehicles capable of reaching the US. None of the allied forces that joined in Desert Storm are willing to participate. The likelyhood that the regime could be toppled by other means is growing. More US citizens have been killed by Pakis than by Irags in recent years. Why don't we invade them? War should always be the last resort, otherwise we are just like every other despotic militarist empire that ever came and went.

If you want to see the world economy disrupted then let the Middle East situation turn into a full scale regional war. I would contend that the focus on Iraq is a family issue with Bush. Iran, one of the world's largest oil producers is buiding 3 breeder reactors with the help of the Russians. Why do you think that is? Are we going to invade Iran or Russia because they may/do have weapons of mass destruction? Are we so fearful that this tin-pot dictator is actually a threat to us? Pulease

Yes I do believe that Iraq is more of a threat than the other nations. I also do believe that we have tried other ways. Also - to say that no one is going to joinus at this early stage is down right ignornant. There isn't even a time table on any maneuvers or even a mass build up of troops out there at this time.

I do believe that war should be a last resort - but in the middle east - even if it is the last resort they twist it into "The west against Islam" anyway.

And Iraq right now has a madman as a ruler. Whereas the other countries - including Iran are a little more stable. I want you to say that to the victims families if the New York Subway system or something is attacked by terrorist groups that received their weapons from Iraq. You can't be so blind in your pacifism to think that Iraq isn't producing weapons of mass destruction and most likely plans on using them - are you?

The US is AGAINST Russia building the Nuclear reactors in Iran. The question with Iran is what will happen if the Fundamentalist Clerics overthrow Iran's leader.

I don't believe that Iraq is a famly issue - I think we should have finished the job when we had the chance. Instead we went to the weak UN and left it up to them and they haven't done anything.

Yeah - a full scale war in the middle east would be bad for the world economy - but just think - it might get something that you and so many other people want. Get Europe and the US's dependence off of oil. If the flow of Middle Eastern oil stops - you better believe that there would be a push for alternative fulls. I'm not saying it'll be easy - but Europe and Japan needs Arab oil more than the US does. And Saudi Arabia and all the other countries in the Middle East rely on the WESTERN WORLD to buy it. So it's not in their best interest to let that happen either. I seriously doubt that the Arab World would sacrofice their WELFARE and MONEY for Iraq - who they all hate.

Also - what kind of delivery vehicles are required? All chemical or biological require is someone mad enough to blow themselves up or die for the cause. And we know that the Middle East has no shortage of them.

Also - until 9/11 VERY FEW American's were killed by Al Qaeda. Most of the people killed in those attacks - such as the embasy bombings and so forth - were not Americans. Now everyone asks why nothing was done, why didn't Bush look at the Clinton plan sooner, why didn't we do more to go after Al Qaeda. But I do recall the outcry that we bombed a suspected biological weapons factory - but was reported (with no proof) that it was a medical facility. But because of the American backlash against getting American's killed for a "supposed" threat - the US government backed off. We didn't take action in Afganistand, we let the threat grow and continue. Then 9/11 hit and everyone seems to forget how everytime we did do anything - there was always the questions of why. 9/11 answered that question.

Just like the US government had more information on Al Qaeda and had plans of taking them out that we didn't have - I'm sure the US government currently has information on Iraq. We'll just have to see what develops right now.

[Hasty Ent]

Does anyone remember when Iraq was our ally against Iran? Has anything fundamentally changed in Iraq since those years when we were supplying them with weapons? I am far from a fan of Hussein's, but it does seem that he is an easy distraction from domestic issues.

[Sween]

Iraq seems to be a bit of a bad smell that just isnt going away. President bush seems to want to put right his fathers wrongs im sure that his dad regreats he didnt finish the job.

Im not sure what the USA beef is with iraq yes they have a dictator and yes they probably have wepons of mass destruction. But do they want to pick a fight with u? i think not. iraqs probably with the us is probably that you pi** them of with all you wepon inspections and embargos. Inspections are ok but embargos are stupid they do nothing but hurt the poor sadam will allways have all the money he wants.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Hasty Ent
Does anyone remember when Iraq was our ally against Iran? Has anything fundamentally changed in Iraq since those years when we were supplying them with weapons? I am far from a fan of Hussein's, but it does seem that he is an easy distraction from domestic issues.

Yeah - but the world changed once the Soviet Union fell and Russia basically became an ally. A lot of countries that were once enemies are our allies and a lot of countries that were our allies are now our enemies. Look at how many tiem England tried to destroy us from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War when they backed the south. Now - that's behind us and we're allies. Russia went from "ally" during WWII to our worst enemy overnight. Of course they were are "enemy" between the Russia Revolution to WWII also.

The world changes and attitudes change and countries change. There have been several times we're I've thought we've been coming closer to Iran. But with the Cleric Fundamentalist putting presure on things there - we're drifting apart again.

[BeardofPants]

Okay, my problem with the potential war on Iraq is that is seems as of yet unprovoked. The UN has been in there and were allowed in most places, but only a few were withheld A former US republican who went into the UN as a weapons inspector has said that he can say 100% that there are no WHOLE weapons of mass destruction. That seems good enough to me. Furthermore, this whole UN is useless because they didn't declare war on Iraq for not submitting to weapons inspection seems to be a bit of a white elephant. They on the one hand, did submit to most of the areas being inspected, and on the other hand, nobody is inspecting the US for weapons of mass-destruction, and we KNOW that they are there - seems a bit hypocritical, don't you think? Also, if the Bush administration does follow through with this seemingly unprovoked war, doesn't that make them as bad as the terrorists they are supposedly fighting?

Give me some good reasons why the US should go to war, and then maybe I'll reconsider my viewpoint, but at the moment it seems wholly unprovoked. Also, if the reasons are good enough, then I think the US should definately go through the UN. That way, if anything goes wrong, at least the maneuvers were sanctioned by the rest of the world.

[Hasty Ent]

Very valid point, jerseydevil. My feeling is, however, that governments in general (all of them, not just the US), claim that military actions are necessary from a moral imperative. I'm not sure that's the real reason behind most conflicts, but convincing your citizens that they are on the side of 'good' is the most effective way to garner their support. The reality is usually much uglier -- economic or political motivations drive most acts of aggression.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
Iraq seems to be a bit of a bad smell that just isnt going away. President bush seems to want to put right his fathers wrongs im sure that his dad regreats he didnt finish the job.

Im not sure what the USA beef is with iraq yes they have a dictator and yes they probably have wepons of mass destruction. But do they want to pick a fight with u? i think not. iraqs probably with the us is probably that you pi** them of with all you wepon inspections and embargos. Inspections are ok but embargos are stupid they do nothing but hurt the poor sadam will allways have all the money he wants.

This is exactly what I was talking about before. They're UN sancations that are in place - but the US gets blamed for them. We tried getting the UN and have for years - to get SMART sanctions in place. But Russia and several other European countries have blocked it. The current sanctions allow those countries to get around some things. The US has fought to get many things that would benefit the Iraqi people in there - but I guess the International Media and in particular the Middle East Media - seem to leave these details out.

Also - it was the COALITION that wanted weapons inspectors - not just AMERICA.

Thanks for making my point Sween that even when America goes through others or is supported by others - we still get the blunt of the blame by people that may not like it.

[BeardofPants]

I thought that the sanctions were suggested by the US and THEN pushed through by the UN?

[Sween]

Unfortnatally the structre of the UN is not really very good. Its a lose affliation of countries which has very little leadership. How the UN works is for a country to take action then they back them up. Its never made the clear the UN is taking the action. As with anything in the world it requires leadership. leadership should allways be taken by the most competent and strongest person (in this case country) and theres the problem is. Britian come in at an adrimable 2nd place but there are too many countries that wont stand up and be counted.

The fatle flaw of the UN is that most countries care very little for what is outside them and will support but will happily shift responsability to someone else.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Okay, my problem with the potential war on Iraq is that is seems as of yet unprovoked. The UN has been in there and were allowed in most places, but only a few were withheld A former US republican who went into the UN as a weapons inspector has said that he can say 100% that there are no WHOLE weapons of mass destruction. That seems good enough to me. Furthermore, this whole UN is useless because they didn't declare war on Iraq for not submitting to weapons inspection seems to be a bit of a white elephant. They on the one hand, did submit to most of the areas being inspected, and on the other hand, nobody is inspecting the US for weapons of mass-destruction, and we KNOW that they are there - seems a bit hypocritical, don't you think? Also, if the Bush administration does follow through with this seemingly unprovoked war, doesn't that make them as bad as the terrorists they are supposedly fighting?

Give me some good reasons why the US should go to war, and then maybe I'll reconsider my viewpoint, but at the moment it seems wholly unprovoked. Also, if the reasons are good enough, then I think the US should definately go through the UN. That way, if anything goes wrong, at least the maneuvers were sanctioned by the rest of the world.

For one thing there have been reports and pictures shown (reminicsient of the Cuban Missile Crisis) on ABC News - of Railroad lines being built from Syria into Iraq. It is believed that this is to smuggle in weapons and other technologies to support Iraq's war machine.

The thing is - as the President keeps saying and everything - there is no time table. It was just reported - and I included links to some articles - that state that nothing may even happen at all this year. Everyone says that we should look at deplomatic alternatives first. Well we are. ABC News World News Satruday just had on that today a lot of Bush's Advisers are against attacking Iraq.

Everyone acts like we have troops and battleships cruising to the area. We have nothing going on. To be honest with you - I still need some proof. I'm not against attacking Irag. I htink Hussein is a liar and is just biding his time. I just hope if he does attack or something - that it's some other country.

And BoP - comparing Iraq to the US and saying we should have weapons inspectors is a little ridiculous. Every country has them - but which ones are more likely to use them. We KNOW that Iraq has already used chemical weapons against his own citizens.

Again you state we should go with the weak UN - to hide behind so public opinion won't point the finger at the US. Well I think Sween already made my point that people and countries seem to ignore when the US gets "world support" and just claims it's the US. The no fly zones that the US keeps in Iraq - are santioned and were instituted by the UNITED NATIONS. I feel if we're going to be blamed for stuff anyway - why hide behind a weak world governing body and just take responsibility for what WE want. Everyone thinks the UN is the US puppet anyway - so why deal with them? Just go for what we want directly. It's not like it changes world opinion by the US going through the UN.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I thought that the sanctions were suggested by the US and THEN pushed through by the UN?

I guess we did what everyone keeps SUGGESTING - which is go through the United Nations. Well we did - and we still get blamed. We did however go back and try getting smart sanction when we realised that they weren't working right and that the Iraqi people were suffering. Maybe people should write to Russia and tell them to support the Smart Sanctions that would allow civilian goods into Iraq.

U.S. Mulls 4-Month Delay in Iraqi 'Smart Sanctions'
By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Racing against the clock, the United States is
considering a four month delay on its proposals to ease the flow of civilian
goods to Iraq but tighten military supplies, diplomats said.

The current U.N. oil-for-food program, which contains the sanctions regulations, expires on Friday with few signs Russia has dropped its opposition to the type of "smart sanctions'' proposals the United States wants.

Consequently Washington on Monday proposed to key U.N. Security Council
members extending the current U.N. oil-for-food program until the end of
March, with the proviso the council commit themselves to a revision of the
embargoes by then, U.S. and other diplomats said.

But the envoys cautioned that Russia has not agreed to the dates contained
in the American proposals. Moscow's own suggestions, in an earlier paper,
called for a six month extension before it would "consider new arrangements for the sale or supply of commodities or products to Iraq.''

Iraq, which shut off oil supplies for a month last June until it was sure
Russia would reject the "smart sanctions,'' wants no changes in the
oil-for-food program except to end the embargoes entirely. Its U.N.
ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, said that an extension less than six months
was unacceptable.

Under the U.N.'s oil-for-food program, Iraq can sell oil and use the
proceeds to buy humanitarian supplies and repair the country's infrastructure. But the United States and other Security Council members can place holds on contracts for items they suspect are intended for the Iraqi
military.

Britain, with U.S. support, last May submitted a resolution that seeks to
ease restrictions on civilian goods, retain bans on military hardware and
set down a list of "dual use'' goods that can be used for both military and
civilian purposes. Other supplies can go through without council approval.

The proposed "goods review list'' of dual use items that would require
council approval before they could be imported into Iraq already has been
considerably relaxed by the United States to obtain the support of China and France.

But Russia has not yet signed on, mainly because Iraq objects to anything short of lifting the sanctions, imposed when its troops invaded Baghdad in August 1990.

Secretary of State Colin Powell discussed the sanctions by telephone on Monday with Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov of Russia, whose government blocked the changes when the embargoes came up in the U.N. Security Council in June.

After those talks, John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations, and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, met on the Iraqi
controversy in New York.

On the CNN program "Larry King Live,'' Powell admitted it was a "tough
issue'' but said he believed "smart sanctions'' was the way to go.

"What we don't want to have go in are equipment that can be used for
developing weapons of mass destruction. We're not doing this just to protect America, but to protect the region,'' Powell said on Monday.

He said the Russians also understood this but they had commercial interests
they wanted to protect. "We have been working with the Russians to see if we can find a compromise that would satisfy the need,'' he added.

At the same time, President Bush warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that if he did not admit United Nations inspectors to determine if Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, he would face consequences.

Bush did not spell out what those might be but said: ''He'll find out.''

Powell characterized Bush's words as "a very sober, chilling message,''
adding: "There are many options available to the international community and to the president.''

So far, however, Russia and the United States disagree on the inspections. Moscow wants sanctions suspended shortly after they are on the scene, a position Washington rejects.

The Bush administration has been torn for months between conservatives who want to oust President Saddam Hussein, by bombing if necessary, and those who believe this would shatter any coalition against terrorism.

JORDANIAN PARLIAMENT REJECTS SMART SANCTIONS
Parliament of Jordan
Amman, Jordan
13 June 2001

The Jordanian Parliament has stressed categorical rejection to what is called smart sanctions due to be imposed on Iraq for further isolation from its Arab surrounding.

In a statement released on Monday, the parliament said that these sanctions are greatly damaging for Iraq and its neighbors and undermine the national economic interests of the region's states, including Jordan.

The parliament called on the Jordanian government to refuse these sanctions and to continue working for lifting the embargo imposed on Iraq and to end the sufferings of the Iraqis and maintain cooperative relations with Iraq.

The Jordanian parliament renewed its assertion to lift the sanctions imposed on Iraq together with all forms of sanctions imposed on it in being targeted to undermine Iraq's own existence and very role.

Worthy of mention is that the US, under its new administration, allied by Britain, has proposed a new project under what is called " smart sanctions" aiming at perpetuating the siege on Iraq, in an advanced way. This project is opposed by Russia, China and France.

IraqiWatch.org

It's amazing how so many people can pursue their self interests - except the US. In BOTH articles - Russia's self interest is pointed out "they (the Russians) had commercial interests
they wanted to protect. " and
Jordan says - "these sanctions .... undermine the national economic interests of the region's states, including Jordan."

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil


Yes I do believe that Iraq is more of a threat than the other nations. I also do believe that we have tried other ways. Also - to say that no one is going to joinus at this early stage is down right ignornant. There isn't even a time table on any maneuvers or even a mass build up of troops out there at this time.

If it isn't happening why are we discussing it? Oh, right, because our government ins't considering it. The point was that no security increase will come from attacking Iraq because it will create even more enemies. If there were an actual act of war against the US it wouldn't matter about allied support. A unilateral unprovoked attack would not be supported by anyone outside the US and most people inside the US. The poll shows that people know what reasons have been given, but only 13% thought any action would make the US safer. Even Dick Armey is against it, so it isn't a party thing, it is just irrational to think it would solve anything.

I do believe that war should be a last resort - but in the middle east - even if it is the last resort they twist it into "The west against Islam" anyway.

What would constitue a justifiable attack? I would think that an overt attack on Americans civilian or military, and not some vague possible link to terrorists. Yes, it would be viewed as an attack on the Arab world. If the Syrians attacked Greece would it not be viewed rightly as an attack on the west? The various Arab factoins hate each other until they have a common foe (like some disfunctional family where the beaten wife attacks the cops).

And Iraq right now has a madman as a ruler. Whereas the other countries - including Iran are a little more stable. I want you to say that to the victims families if the New York Subway system or something is attacked by terrorist groups that received their weapons from Iraq. You can't be so blind in your pacifism to think that Iraq isn't producing weapons of mass destruction and most likely plans on using them - are you?

You don't se my point if you think I am a pacifist. I don't want to see our young men die because we might be in slight danger from a loon. If you ask any military person whether they would put troops in harm's way for frivolous reasons, the answer would be a firm "no." I wish we had finished the job the first time around. Iran? stable? On what do you base this assumption? You haven't made the case that attacking Iraq will make the subway riders safer. Have you read the recent articles about Saudi Arabia being one of the largest sorce of funds for terrorist groups? What about Yemen where the Cole was attacked? What about Ethiopia where our helicopters were shot down? These terrorist cells are operating in many contries and funded by many sources. PLease explain how attacking just one of these countries will make us safer? Just like Afghanistan, they will scatter like roaches only to reappear again. If we can push other countries to a zero tolerance position on terrorism then maybe closing in on them would be possible. Much has been done but the time for war is not now. Covert ops will accomplish more without the fallout of an all out war. How about a doctrine that states that the use of biological or nuclear weapons by any party would draw an attack from the US. We could bribe the Russians to "partner" in this with aid money. Who would risk it then?

The US is AGAINST Russia building the Nuclear reactors in Iran. The question with Iran is what will happen if the Fundamentalist Clerics overthrow Iran's leader.

Yes, but they are still building them, aren't they?

Yeah - a full scale war in the middle east would be bad for the world economy - but just think - it might get something that you and so many other people want. Get Europe and the US's dependence off of oil. If the flow of Middle Eastern oil stops - you better believe that there would be a push for alternative fulls. I'm not saying it'll be easy - but Europe and Japan needs Arab oil more than the US does. And Saudi Arabia and all the other countries in the Middle East rely on the WESTERN WORLD to buy it. So it's not in their best interest to let that happen either. I seriously doubt that the Arab World would sacrofice their WELFARE and MONEY for Iraq - who they all hate.

You must view this from a supply and demand point of view. If they can't get oil from their sources they will need to buy from ours, prices will rise and we'll have the 70's style shortages again. Alternative fuels can't be deployed overnight.

Also - what kind of delivery vehicles are required? All chemical or biological require is someone mad enough to blow themselves up or die for the cause. And we know that the Middle East has no shortage of them.

..and invading would change this how?

Also - until 9/11 VERY FEW American's were killed by Al Qaeda. Most of the people killed in those attacks - such as the embasy bombings and so forth - were not Americans. Now everyone asks why nothing was done, why didn't Bush look at the Clinton plan sooner, why didn't we do more to go after Al Qaeda. But I do recall the outcry that we bombed a suspected biological weapons factory - but was reported (with no proof) that it was a medical facility. But because of the American backlash against getting American's killed for a "supposed" threat - the US government backed off. We didn't take action in Afganistand, we let the threat grow and continue. Then 9/11 hit and everyone seems to forget how everytime we did do anything - there was always the questions of why. 9/11 answered that question.

Just like the US government had more information on Al Qaeda and had plans of taking them out that we didn't have - I'm sure the US government currently has information on Iraq. We'll just have to see what develops right now.

Our primary concern should be defense in the truest sense of the word. Make the US more secure from outside terrorists and be prepared to root it out abraod when it is found. I hope they do have some actual information regarding a real threat that would at least mollify our loyal allies. Our government has created false threats before to justify war. I guess I have a hard time being afraid of Iraq after living through most of the Cold War.

I don't want another Pearl Harbor, but I don't want another Havana Bay (Sinking the Maine) type incident either. Our claim, as a nation, to be more just and civilized would be a hollow mockery.

Why we didn't go after Al Qaeda sooner I'll never understand. I do remember it being very political; back in the good ol' days when we had a high flying economy and political rancor was sport because no one acknowledged the very real threat that was clear from the acts against the WTC the first time and the embassy attack. Sometimes I wonder if they shouldn't lengthen the term for congressmen since they seem to spend most of their time running for office and, er, ahem... raising money, instead of thinking about the tasks at hand.

I will support our troops once a decision has been made, but I would expect a thorough justifaction, lacking an overt act of war, before any lives are taken. My uncle fought in WWII in the Pacific. He was one of the first troops to enter Hiroshima. To this day he has nightmares from him war experiences. He did his best to keep his boys out of Vietnam, even though he himself volunteered. War is a serious matter the discussion of which should not be viewed as an interuption of a round of golf.

[jerseydevil]

I know about the other countries. I also think we should be a little more hard on our middle east "so called allies". Saudi Arabia is a joke as an allie - and yes I have read the reports.

Also - as I said - I'm not necessarily for war at this time. I think more facts have to come out.

A lot of what you put - I could have put on my first post - but then it would have been 3 pages long. No - bombing Iraq won't make us immediately save. Yes the Palestinian/Israeli thing needs to be resolved to bring a more lasting peace. The Middle East doesn't won't peace in that region because it enables them to keep their citizen's attention on something besides their miserable existence in their own country.

Our primary concern should be defense in the truest sense of the word. Make the US more secure from outside terrorists and be prepared to root it out abraod when it is found.

I agree 100%. But the only way to make our life safe in the US - is to round up all the illigal residents from the Middle East - and ship them back. Then close our borders to anyone of Middle Eastern descent until we get this straigtened out. Would there be an outcry? Of course there would be. Would the world be saying - "so much for the land of the free"? Of course they would be. But as I said before in other threads the only people that have a right to be on American soil are AMERICANS. This won't happen though. But then at least the terrorist can go back to blowing up things in other coutries, where - sadly - most Americans really don'tcare too much about. Most American's didn't care about the Embassy bombing. It was just a bunch of fanatics in another country. It didn't happen here. Now that it has happened here - people's attitudes are a bit different.

And I agree prices of gas will rise. But isn't that what I hear so many people saying is the US's problem. Gas is cheap here. Let's raise gas to $4 a gallon. There was a letter in the Princeton Packet yesterday that France has $4 a gallon gas and that US should too.

[Comic Book Guy]

But as I said before in other threads the only people that have a right to be on American soil are AMERICANS.

So that's what that whole war on Tourism is about then.