WHEN WILL THE US ATTACK IRAQ AND SHOULD THEY?

[shiner]

Please pull out of your ass links that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this guy has WMD.

Ummm gee.....I dunno......maybe the fact that he gassed his own people should be proof that he has WMD. Chemical & biological weapons are considered WMD.

 

[HiveMaster]

Oh gee, well I am so scared of him, now that he sprayed chlorine on protesters!

Even the Republican party is breaking ranks with Bush on this! (Good parts are in bold for the cliff's notes people)

Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy NYT August 16, 2002
By TODD S. PURDUM and PATRICK E. TYLER


WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 ? Leading Republicans from Congress, the State Department and past administrations have begun to break ranks with President Bush over his administration's high-profile planning for war with Iraq, saying the administration has neither adequately prepared for military action nor made the case that it is needed.


These senior Republicans include former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush's national security adviser. All say they favor the eventual removal of Saddam Hussein, but some say they are concerned that Mr. Bush is proceeding in a way that risks alienating allies, creating greater instability in the Middle East, and harming long-term American interests. They add that the administration has not shown that Iraq poses an urgent threat to the United States.

At the same time, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who summoned Mr. Kissinger for a meeting on Tuesday, and his advisers have decided that they should focus international discussion on how Iraq would be governed after Mr. Hussein ? not only in an effort to assure a democracy but as a way to outflank administration hawks and slow the rush to war, which many in the department oppose.

"For those of us who don't see an invasion as an article of faith but as simply a policy option, there is a feeling that you need to give great consideration to what comes after, and that unless you're prepared to follow it through, then you shouldn't begin it," one senior administration official involved in foreign policy said today.

In an opinion article published today in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Scowcroft, who helped build the broad international coalition against Iraq in the Persian Gulf war, warned that "an attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken." An attack might provoke Iraq to use chemical or biological weapons in an effort to trigger war between Israel and the Arab world, he said.

His criticism has particular meaning for Mr. Bush because Mr. Scowcroft was virtually a member of the Bush family during the first President Bush's term and has maintained close relations with the former president.

Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska said that Secretary Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, had recently told President Bush of their concerns about the risks and complexities of a military campaign against Iraq, especially without broad international support. But senior White House and State Department officials said they were unaware of any such meeting.

Also today, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, who was briefly secretary of state for Mr. Bush's father, told ABC News that unless Mr. Hussein "has his hand on a trigger that is for a weapon of mass destruction, and our intelligence is clear, I don't know why we have to do it now, when all our allies are opposed to it."

Last week, Representative Dick Armey, the House majority leader, raised similar concerns.

The comments by Mr. Scowcroft and others in the Republican foreign policy establishment appeared to be a loosely coordinated effort. Mr. Scowcroft first spoke out publicly 10 days ago on the CBS News program "Face the Nation."

In an opinion article published on Monday in The Washington Post, Mr. Kissinger made a long and complex argument about the international complications of any military campaign, writing that American policy "will be judged by how the aftermath of the military operation is handled politically," a statement that seems to play well with the State Department's strategy.

"Military intervention should be attempted only if we are willing to sustain such an effort for however long it is needed," he added. Far from ruling out military intervention, Mr. Kissinger said the challenge was to build a careful case that the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction calls for creation of a new international security framework in which pre-emptive action may sometimes be justified.

Through his office in New York, Mr. Kissinger relayed a message that his meeting with Secretary Powell had been scheduled before the publication of his article and was unrelated. But a State Department official said Secretary Powell had wanted Mr. Kissinger's advice on how to influence administration thinking on both Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Scowcroft wrote that if the United States "were seen to be turning our backs" on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute "in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us."

He added: "There is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive."

Richard N. Perle, a former Reagan administration official and one of the leading hawks who has been orchestrating an urgent approach to attacking Iraq, said today that Mr. Scowcroft's arguments were misguided and naïve.

"I think Brent just got it wrong," he said by telephone from France. "The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism." IN OTHER WORDS, BETTER MAKE SURE BUSH SAVES FACE, EVEN IF HE IS WRONG...

Mr. Perle added, "I think it is naïve to believe that we can produce results in the 50-year-old dispute between the Israelis and the Arabs, and therefore this is an excuse for not taking action."

Senator Hagel, who was among the earliest voices to question Mr. Bush's approach to Iraq, said today that the Central Intelligence Agency had "absolutely no evidence" that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons.

He said he shared Mr. Kissinger's concern that Mr. Bush's policy of pre-emptive strikes at governments armed with weapons of mass destruction could induce India to attack Pakistan and could create the political cover for Israel to expel Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza.

"You can take the country into a war pretty fast," Mr. Hagel said, "but you can't get out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are."

He added, "Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad."

For months, the State Department's approach has been to focus on how to build a government in Iraq.

After meetings here last week involving Iraqi opposition groups and administration officials, one official said today that there was now consensus in the State Department that if more discussion was focused on the challenge of creating a post-Hussein government, "that would start broaching the question of what kind of assistance you are going to need from the international community to assure this structure endures ? read between the lines, how long the occupation will have to be."

Such discussions, the official added, would have a sobering effect on the war-planners.

 

[shiner]

Oh gee, well I am so scared of him, now that he sprayed chlorine on protesters!

It was more than chlorine gas, he also used nerve agents. Against protesters? Ummm yeah if you want to call the Kurdish people who want the right to govern themselves protestors.

 

[HiveMaster]

The tide keeps turning...

 

[shiner]

What? Slate and the NYT had articles in them that reflected negatively on the Bush Administration? I''m shocked!!! Next thing you'll post a link to a Berkley publication that rips on the Republican Party. Oh what oh what is this world coming to???

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Iraq is no risk to the US in the least, zero

Wrong. Iraq is an exporter of terrorism and gives a lot of funding to terrorist organizations. Also there are reports that Al Queda, as well as Hammas, have been setting up training camps in Iraq. Turn a blind eye to it if you want, but don't come crying to me when another attack like 9/11 happens and you lose a loved one as a result of it.

Do you any credible evidence to back that up?? Supporting Islamic fundamentalists is directly against Saddam Husseins main priority which is to keep his regime in power. He may be funneling money to Hamas to piss the Israelis off and to raise his status in the Islamic world but Al Qaeda??

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: HiveMaster
The tide keeps turning...

The tide was never in the favor of this administration on this. The chief UN weapons inspector isn't so sure they have wmd or will soon, so the bush administration had better come clean on its purposes.

Now that Russia and Iraq are about to sign a $40 billion agreement, it probably makes it more urgent for this administration to act so that it can invalidate that agreement with an iraqi leadership change, and channel more of the infrastructure upgrade contracts to our firms.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Jesus, how much bullsh it do we have to endure here????

I don't know, when are you going to quit posting here?

The only threat to free flowing oil is the Saudi Arabian government. Without the free flow of oil, Saddam and Iraq are dead in the water. The last thing Saddam wants to do is starve out his own people and get his ass killed

So what's he been doing the last 10 years? Hint: Starving his people out because of the sanctions. Yeah he has real concern for his people.

Oh, you mean that war started because Bush one's representative told Saddam that the US would sit on the side if they decided to invade Kuwait??? The war that resulted in massive profits for US companies involved in the cleanup afterward?

No f-tard I mean the war that started because Saddam wanted to control the oil in Kuwait.

Please pull out of your ass links that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this guy has WMD. The rest of the world thinks that we have NO REASON to attack Iraq. Even the countries bordering Iraq do not think the country is a threat.

You mean besides the fact taht he used them on the Kurds you dumb fsck. You mean besides the UN weapons inspectors reports.

Puh-lease. His so-called "army" fell all over itself surrendering to the UN troops the last time around. The troops have about as much incentive to fight for Saddam as I have. My worries about his invasion forces are ZERO.

So now you're an expert on the morale of the Iraq military? We all know that they woiuld never go to war with another country because they've never done that before. Right.

 

[rbhawcroft]

Originally posted by: HiveMaster
Oh gee, well I am so scared of him, now that he sprayed chlorine on protesters!Even the Republican party is breaking ranks with Bush on this! (Good parts are in bold for the cliff's notes people)

Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy NYT August 16, 2002By TODD S. PURDUM and PATRICK E. TYLERAfter meetings here last week involving Iraqi opposition groups and administration officials, one official said today that there was now consensus in the State Department that if more discussion was focused on the challenge of creating a post-Hussein government, "that would start broaching the question of what kind of assistance you are going to need from the international community to assure this structure endures ? read between the lines, how long the occupation will have to be."Such discussions, the official added, would have a sobering effect on the war-planners.

can i ask how you came to be one of the liberal establishment's jerk pieces?

the other thing about kissenger is that he has a f policy consultancy, so if he goes with the flow you think hes selling what the others want, and if he contradicts them then you think he is putting his repuation down, and he is a secret sandal wearer.

 

[HiveMaster]

You mean besides the fact taht he used them on the Kurds you dumb fsck. You mean besides the UN weapons inspectors reports.

I mean that you and your fellow mouth-breathers seem to think that whatever the GW admin says is gospel and you ignore what the rest of the world, congress, our own military leaders, and LEADERS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY are saying about Iraq: No problems there, why do you want to invade????

If you say that the reason why we are going to Iraq is because Saddam starves his people and generally treats them like crap, then I would advise you to start where the worst abuses exist: Saudi Arabia, China, South Africa, Nigeria, and the Sudan. We have people in the US that are starving right now, for that matter. Why go after Saddam when these other targets deserve our attention more?

Why, because going after Saddam keeps Bush in power. It keeps coming back to that. The only reason why Bush would not go after Saddam is if he finally realizes that it is not politically expedient to do so.

 

[HiveMaster]

can i ask how you came to be one of the liberal establishment's jerk pieces?

Maybe you should be asking that question of all the Republican leaders that agree with me.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: HiveMaster

You mean besides the fact taht he used them on the Kurds you dumb fsck. You mean besides the UN weapons inspectors reports.

I mean that you and your fellow mouth-breathers seem to think that whatever the GW admin says is gospel and you ignore what the rest of the world, congress, our own military leaders, and LEADERS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY are saying about Iraq: No problems there, why do you want to invade????

If you say that the reason why we are going to Iraq is because Saddam starves his people and generally treats them like crap, then I would advise you to start where the worst abuses exist: Saudi Arabia, China, South Africa, Nigeria, and the Sudan. We have people in the US that are starving right now, for that matter. Why go after Saddam when these other targets deserve our attention more?

Why, because going after Saddam keeps Bush in power. It keeps coming back to that. The only reason why Bush would not go after Saddam is if he finally realizes that it is not politically expedient to do so.

If you had actually read what all those people have said you would have seen that not one of them has said that Saddam shouldn't go and if we build a coalition that we should take him out. No one has said that we should just leave Saddam where he is. No one. I have said on this board many times that it is imperaticve that we build a coalition. If that doesn't happen, I don't know what we should do. I do know that the longer we wait, the stronger he gets, the harder it becomes to get rid of him. History has taught us that these guys don't just go away.

 

[HiveMaster]

From www.townhall.com, one of the more conservative web sites:

Doug Bandow (archive)
(printer-friendly version)

August 20, 2002

Don't start the second Gulf War

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush says he hasn't made up his mind about "any of our policies in regard to Iraq." But to not attack after spending months talking about regime change seems inconceivable. Fortunately, war is not likely to be as simple and as certain as he and many others seem to think. Lots of arguments have been offered on why we need to strike Baghdad. One, for instance, is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who has brutalized his own people.

True, but the world is full of brutal regimes that have murdered their own. Indeed, Washington's ally Turkey has a policy toward its Kurd population scarcely more gentle than Iraq's Kurd policy.

Slightly more plausible is the contention that a democratic Iraq would provide a model for the rest of the Mideast. But that presupposes democracy can be easily planted and sustained. Professions of unity from an opposition once dismissed by retired Gen. Anthony Zinni as "silk-suited, Rolex-wearing guys in London" offer little comfort and are likely to last no longer than have similar promises in Afghanistan.

Also problematic is Kurdish demands for autonomy and Shiite Muslim resistance to the central government. One defense official told The Washington Post: "I think it is almost a certainty that we'd wind up doing a campaign against the Kurds and Shiites."

Similarly worrisome would be action by Iran, with which Baghdad fought a decade-long war. Tehran might consider intervention against a weakened Iraq as an antidote to serious political unrest at home.

Moreover, while Americans might see America's war on Iraq as a war for democracy, most Arabs would see it as a war for Washington. If the United States deposes Saddam, but leaves in place despotic, pro-American regimes elsewhere -- such as Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia -- few Arabs would take Washington's rhetoric seriously.

Saddam's complicity in Sept. 11 would present a good argument for devastating retaliation, but there's no evidence that he was involved. The best argument for overthrowing Saddam is the prospect of Baghdad developing weapons of mass destruction.

Yet if nonproliferation should be enforced by waging war, Washington will be very busy in the coming years. The problem is not just countries like Iran and North Korea, which seem to have or have had serious interest in developing atomic weapons. It is India, Pakistan and Russia, which contain unpredictable nationalist and theological currents, have governments of varying instability and offer uncertain security over technical know-how, as well as actual weapons.

Potentially most dangerous is Pakistan's arsenal. The government of Pervez Musharraf is none too steady. Islamabad long supported the Taliban. Its military and intelligence forces almost certainly contain al-Qaeda sympathizers. It is easy to imagine Pakistan's nuclear technology falling into terrorist hands.

In contrast, Saddam would not use such weapons against America, since to do so would guarantee his incineration. Israel possesses a similarly overbearing deterrent.

Would Baghdad turn atomic weapons over to terrorists? Not likely.

First, to give up a technology developed at such a high price would be extraordinary. Second, Baghdad would be the immediate suspect and likely target of retaliation should any terrorist deploy nuclear weapons. Third, al-Qaeda holds secular Arab dictators in contempt and might target Saddam as well as America.

Of course, the world would be a better place without Saddam's dictatorship. But that's no reason to initiate war against a state which poses no direct, ongoing threat. Especially since war often has unpredictable consequences.

Washington would have to bear most of the burden, a task made more difficult and expensive without European support and Saudi staging grounds.

If Iraq's forces didn't quickly crumble, the United States might find itself involved in urban conflict that would be costly in human and political terms. Saddam would have an incentive to use any weapons of mass destruction that he possesses, since Washington is dedicated to his overthrow.

Further, the United States would be sloshing gasoline over undemocratic Arab regimes stretching from North Africa to Southeast Asia. Riots in Egypt, a fundamentalist rising in Pakistan, a spurt of sectarian violence in Indonesia, and who knows what else could pose a high price for any success against Iraq.

War is serious. Making war on a country which does not threaten the United States is particularly serious.

Even if the optimists who think a campaign against Iraq would be easy are right -- and we can only hope they are -- war should be a last resort. As House Majority Leader Richard Armey warned, an unprovoked attack "would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a nation."

There are times when Washington has no choice but to fight.

Iraq is not such a place and now is not such a time.


Contact Doug Bandow | Read his biography


©2002 Copley News Service

It seems that more and more conservatives are figuring this out...why can't GW's cronies????

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle

Originally posted by: nagger
I don't agree with bombing Iraq just for the sake of killing/removing Saddam Husein from power.

I think that you americans should think long and hard on this subject because the true motives behind this invasion/assassination conspiracy is the amount of oil that Iraq has in it's soils.

Saddam hasn't got any type of missile that could reach the US, he doesn't pose any threat to the US or it's citizens right now.

This is MHO

as 9/11 showed...u dont need missles that reach around the world...you dont need anything...all u need is a plane ticket.

And a mission aginst Iraq would make sure there are less people willing to launch such an attack? Why did 9/11 happen in the first place?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Soon would be good. Then we'd be able to tap Alaska for more oil that's there (and not be so goddamn dependant on other countries) and save us way too much money.

Besides... we could use more parking in the world. Glass parkinglot anyone?

nik