"Armageddon it"... so soon?

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,925
259
126
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/senate.iraq.hearing/index.html reports that:

Iraq experts warn senators: Saddam pushing ahead with weapons program
July 31, 2002 Posted: 1:32 PM EDT (1732 GMT)
Senators on Wednesday convene hearings on the military capabilities of Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush is justified in being concerned about Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, the Democratic chairman of a Senate committee said at the start of two days of hearings.

Sounds like Bush's war hawks are out convincing Congress that now is the time to capitulate Saddam. Its a virtually impossible mission to capitulate a national leader in their own country with military force, but Bush seems to think it needs to happen. If Iraq really is able to still build a nuclear program then I'm sure the U.S. would already know how to shut it down, so the idea of removing Saddam is only a smoke screen to cover Bush's personal vendetta. Saddam laid into Bush Sr. ever since the Gulf War and has laid into Bush Jr. ever since he's become the current U.S. president.

I'm sorry, but this whole idea of capitulating a leader of a sovereign nation is risky business.

1. Even if we reforge an international alliance it makes the U.S. bear the brunt of the burden.

2. The oil supply is going to be interupted across the rest of the world and the U.S. supply will indirectly become affected. Sure the U.S. has isolated itself from MidEast gasoline to the tune of only 12% of its supply, but that doesn't mean its supply has no effect on the U.S. economy. We already have $1.50/gallon gasoline here in the midwest. Be sure to expect $2.00+/gallon when the shooting starts! California will enjoy $3.00 gas by then...

3. Its always been counter-productive to send troops to fight on the enemies soil. Iraq will be defending its sovereignty now, not defending its overstretched supply lines to Kuwait. Iraqi citizens will be compelled to fight back because to a large extent they will be defending their way of life. Saddam has his detractors, but to a majority of his population he is a sugar daddy. Is the U.S. prepared to pay their bills?

4. There is a high chance of a dirty nuclear bomb deployment. There is still the risk of a successful nuclear program, too. The U.S. has no idea the capabilities of this madman's army. It would suck to lose 1500-3000 soldiers in a battalion to a Iraqi nuclear response. If Pakistan could do it then Iraq can do it. Don't kid yourself.

5. Be prepared for a terrorist backlash across the world. September 11th was one large scale operation. There will be many smaller scale operations in retaliation. People will die. Governments will sieze the average citizen's personal liberties in response. Its already happened in the U.S., just go to the airport and act out of the ordinary.


This personal vendetta to capitulate Saddam just doesn't justify itself. The U.S. is better off spending the invasion money on its own economy. Last I checked the economy could use a little boost. Alas, we are all just beasts of burden to the great politicians in Washington, D.C. and our opinions mean nothing...
rolleye.gif
 

Spike

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2001
6,770
1
81
I am not going to argue with you but as far as I can tell, Saddam is still trying to build a nuclear weapon. He is still denying the UN weapons inspectors (even the new group of them) so they cannot search the sites they KNOW are being used to at least research weapons of mass destruction. I personally think we needed to take out saddam way back during the gulf war, but IMO, better late than never.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,925
259
126
If he has a nuke so be it. No need to go around bashing every country with a nuke. Its pure FUD to align the military against every country out there that is nuclear capable. The likelihood of them deploying the nuke for anything but self defense is next to zilch. Do you honestly believe Saddam would give nukes to terrorists? Please............. pure nonsense.
 

rpc64

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2002
2,135
0
0
Saddam is a terrorist. He is a dangerous man in a position of power. He and his country do not like America. As long as he is in power, building weapons of mass destruction, he poses a pretty high threat I'd say. I don't think he'd be keeping inspectors out while building his weapons if he planned on only using them for defense. We don't know what he's planning to use them for, and that's a bad thing. He should either comply or be removed from power. If the US is the only country that will do it, then so be it.