Should the US attack Iraq?

Tagged:
This story might surprise some, but I think the Iraqi regime does need to change and that a military removal of Saddam probably is going to be necessary. However, I still agree with other nations around the Earth that the inspection process needs to run its course. I dont think unilateral action by the United States is either a good idea, or justified. This may seem contradictory but its not. Mr. Hussein is a terrible guy, he runs a terrible regime, they need to be ousted to free the Iraqi people and remove that element of danger from that part of the world, agreed, but we need to prove that case and THEN oust. Today Colin Powell presented the "proof" that the Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction. He displayed picture of guys in trucks at suspected weapons sites before inspections and some audio recordings that state "forbidden ammo". Neither of these are proof of WMD. These prove things like the Iraqis have trucks, and the Iraqis were at the inspections sites with trucks days before the inspections, and the Iraqis can speak, etc. These PROVE that the inspection process is not quite working, these prove that Iraq somehow had prior knowledge of inspection sites, but they do not PROVE WMD. Yes these items are suspicious, but they are not the proof the US government has been unequivically claiming for 6 months (Condolezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld have both made public statements quite regularly that the US has "proof" of banned weapons). This is not really as complicated as we all try to make it. The UN mandate states exactly what is banned. Find something that is banned and game over, UN approves military action to oust the current regime. Dont find anything that is banned and then improve the inspection process to FIND SOMETHING. All the hawks in the states say they already have "material breach", no they dont really, they have some suspicious activity and unwillingness but they dont have the proverbial "somking gun" and thats what we need. With all of the power of the mighty United States and the mighty UN, why cant we just find one of the banned weapons, find ONE of the 7 mobile chemical/biological weapons facilities? I want this war to happen to tell the truth, I want Saddam the hell out, and frankly not just out but DEAD, but at the same time it must be justified, we cannot start a war because of suspicions, guys in trucks on sattelite photos and unbridled military hubris. So despite the "revelations" of today that are nothing of the sort, the inspections and the search need to go on. But please, if the US has all this information then give it to the UN and help the inspectors find something. For more on the latest see the linked CNN story.   Powell gives key Iraq presentation: CNN

Comments

Re: Should the US attack Iraq?

Should the US attack North Korea. They have known weapons of mass destruction. The only thing Iraq has that North Korea does not have is oil. Show us soild proof that the Iraqies have weapons of mass destruction or hold off. [%sig%]

Re: Should the US attack Iraq?

Ok, so this is proof to go to war? It's pretty damn clear that they didn't give this evidence in order to help the UN weapons inspection team, but to help their administration gain leverage to blow **** up and plunder. After being told for the past 6 months about all of this definitive evidence of Iraqi wmd and involvement with terrorist groups, this is all they could come up with? Doesn't something seem fishy about them making all these claims and then scrambling to provide any evidence whatsoever to back them up? Even the CIA has been quoted as saying that Iraq does not pose a particular threat to us unless attacked. The truth is that we've been going down the wrong path for the past 15-20 years when it comes to Iraq and it's going to be difficult and time-consuming to correct our problems now. Maybe this is why people say that 'the left' (and no, the democrats aren't even 'left' anymore) has no answers. I can't tell you that I have a plan that will result in the removal of the Ba'ath regime from Iraq within 1 month, but I can tell you that if the nations of the world worked together to bring a peaceful resolution to this situation with the same resolve as they're trying to bring war then we would be able to fix it. Remember, Bush didn't even want weapons inspections in the first place, and people should have no illusions that the inspections or the UN in general will stop a war. This does not mean that we should let up pressure. The world is a pretty complex place and there's still a chance that our actions will finally flip something over somewhere and avert a war. At the least our pressure can help to 'keep them honest' and think twice before acting. [%sig%]

Re: Should the US attack Iraq?

Should the US attack Iraq? Short answer, no. BTW anyone going with the because Iraq has oil crap is being completely lead by the mass media. Lots of places have oil and the US is not planning to go to war there. The US does not even get any oil from Iraq. I guess just giving them tanks and helicopters just is not enough anymore. This is what it is really all about now isn't it? http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/1/1land91.html

Re: Should the US attack Iraq?

Agreed George. I wrote a rant here a while back (now archived in the politics section) about just that. NK is an obvios greater threat to "national security", but there is no urgent plea to attack them? Its politics, including oil and ease of assignment, that make Iraq the target, not "security".

Re: Should the US attack Iraq?

I dont think its *all* about oil, but I think that IS a factor. Media or not. Even if the US does not get oil from Iraq NOW, the fact is that that region of the Earth produces mega oil, the US has nowhere near 25% of the Earths population but consumes over 25% of the oil. Couple that with the fact that IF the US were to attack Iraq on whatever premise and achieve "regime change" then the next regime would likely be friendly and sympathetic towards the states and THEN the oil could flow. Again, I dont think thats the ONLY reason, its also politics of military industry, its an easy war to take on and win (if you can convince the world its just that is) and it boots the military businesses, maybe the economy as a whole and the view of the Republican party. Would a president go to war over reasons such as those? Surely not, I must be flat out wrong. All that said though, saying that people are missing the point by bringing up oil, media missing the point as well, is wrong, oil is a part of the equation.

Re: Should the US attack Iraq?

For what it's worth I heard on NPR a few months ago that the US is the number 1 consumer of Iraq oil. It evidently is easier/cheaper to refine due to the types of impurities vs. other oil sources. I don't have proof of this, just what some guy on the radio said...perhaps I'll research this today.

Re: Should the US attack Iraq?

They do not get oil from Iraq now. That is the key put some one in who is friendly and the oil starts to flow. [%sig%]

Re: Should the US attack Iraq?

I knew I wasn't imagining things. From the Opec 2001 Statistical Bulletin ([url=http://www.opec.org/]opec[/url]) page 92 - OPEC Members' crude oil exports by destination, 1997-2001 (1,000 b/d) Iraq Unites States 1997(91.7) 1998(345.2) 1999(754.4) 2000(658.9) 2001(846.1) Next closest was France with 95.8 in 2001 - in fact all of Western Europe combined only consumed 398.6 combined in 2001.

Re: Should the US attack Iraq?

yeah, thanks Shmooze, its not about the oil though eh? thats just the "media hype"

Re: Should the US attack Iraq?

check this **** too: [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,890929,00.html]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,890929,00.html[/url] turns out the great British document on Iraqs "infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation" which powell cited AT THE UN " would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities." is just a PLAGIARISED REHASH of older crap from the academic world and other sources. while this document may or may NOT be accurate, what is startling is that the US and British govts apprently not only buy it, but claim to have produced it as well. how much homework and critical thinking is really going on in this game????

Re: Should the US attack Iraq?

Well the U.S. tried to cut off all of Iraq's oil exports but some bleeding hearts in the world came up with this: http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/ The U.S. continues to try to use economic sanctions against Iraq as a means for U.S. policy implementaiton but so far it has not been successful. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm Damn but some crooks sure are getting rich off this situation. Saddam is just in the wrong place at the right time. More power to him! And screw the holier than thou U.S. and U.K. A pair of crooks of ever there were two. It's all the bleeding hearts that are letting this situation continue in my opinion. No one is innocent. BTW Atrox media misdirection is not media hype.

Re: Should the US attack Iraq?

Bhawa wrote: "The US does not even get any oil from Iraq." OK, Bhawa, I knew you had a tendency to rant and rave like a madman, but is it also ALL bullshit or are you even going to address that earlier comment?

Re: Should the US attack Iraq?

I don't think the US should attack Iraq. I think the US, Canada, UK, Germany, Spain, France, whom ever has the balls to do it. I have the great misfortune of living in Oregon, USA, there everyone here seems to be pot-smoking hippies. And do they want to attack Iraq? No, they want to lay around smoking their j’s and wearing hippie clothes. Most are also democrats. So, why should we attack Iraq? To feed our ever growing demand for crude oil? To beat up on some poor poor country that is being ruined, I mean rules by a very misunderstood tyrant, I mean ruler? Or to use our strength to introduce something the Middle East hasn’t known for years. Freedom. Freedom from poison gas, freedom from religious oppression, freedom from psycho leaders to whom brainwash the population into believing their corrupt way of life is the right kind of life. But, lets not kill a few civilians as we try to protect the world. Lets let Sodamn Insane do all the killing of innocent people for us. He’s got a pretty good track record of it. Well, my J’s getting stale and the wife’s threatening to throw my clothes in the washer. To bad I don’t live in Iraq so I could beat her like a lesser person. No, I don’t, so I’ll treat her the way she should be treated. Like my equal. Peace. Grant

Re: Should the US attack Iraq?

i posted a rambling response to this, calling names with stupid generalizations right back ("post smoking hippies") but then decided it wasnt worth it. if you believe the "freedom" rhetoric, then you wont be convinced by anything, much inconsitencies in your logic, facts to the contrary and reality. i agree that bad guys need to be dealt with, i disagree with HOW they are being dealt with, but thats a discussion that is beyond this post (for a number of reasons). if you feel better about being a great american (Even though you have the "misfortune" to live where you do as you say) then just go on believing the "freedom" crap, and the "coalitian" crap and the "balls" crap, all very solid positions that you are correct (extreme sarcasm intended).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.