A well reason case why not to invade

Post #48,318 by dmarker2 8/6/02 5:12:01 AM Reply	A well reason case why not to invade (just to balance the babble :-) [link\|http://www.merip.org/newspaper_opeds/CT-shouldn't_attack_iraq4.html\|Original Link] The item We Shouldn't Attack Iraq Chris Toensing (07/02) Knight-Ridder Newswire The Bush administration's arguments for going to war with Iraq don't hold up. The reason cited most often is Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Though there hasn't been a comprehensive weapons inspection in Iraq since December 1998, it is wise to assume that the Iraqi regime is hiding at least a few chemical and biological warheads (though probably not a nuclear bomb). But why would Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein use his illicit weapons of mass destruction, if he has them? When he gassed Kurds and Iranian soldiers in 1988, Iraq was fighting a war with Iran, armed and protected by the United States and its Arab allies. Today, the power equation is reversed. To use such weapons preemptively would build in a heartbeat the presently non-existent international consensus for Hussein's forcible removal. And if the United States were to invade Iraq with "regime change" as its goal, then Iraq could quite possibly use these weapons. The chemical and biological weapons would lose their deterrent value unless the Iraqi regime utilized them, whether against US troops, allied Kurdish militias or defenseless civilians. Hussein might also lob a chemical or biological warhead at Israel in hopes of igniting a regional conflagration in which he became a sideshow. Israel might then retaliate with a nuclear missile, and indeed the Nuclear Posture Review, which was leaked to the Los Angeles Times in February, projected an Iraqi attack on Israel as one scenario in which the United States could send its own nukes at Iraq. Since the late days of the Clinton administration, "regime change" rhetoric has precluded any progress on getting UN inspectors back into Iraq. In a war, that rhetoric -- combined with the Iraqi regime's cynicism -- could embroil the two sides in a fight to the death with consequences too horrible to contemplate. Contrary to the Bush administration's thinking, international law does not grant the United States the right to "preemptively strike" a country which could in the future manufacture weapons that might target American soil. The United States can only attack if Iraq strikes first or threatens to attack imminently. If the United States launched a war on Iraq, it would not only imperil innocent lives but would also endanger the very constraints on the behavior of states that Iraq violated when it started this whole mess by invading Kuwait. Of course, the current White House has not abided by its international obligations. Last November, the United States scuttled negotiations over verification procedures for the Biological Weapons Convention because it didn't want nosy inspectors poking around "sovereign" research labs -- the exact same defiance for which Hussein is now in US gunsights. In his State of the Union address, President Bush said, "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror." But the connections between the Iraqi regime and Sept. 11 have failed to materialize. Sen. Joseph Biden's comments on "Fox News Sunday" on July 21 that the White House must demonstrate Iraqi links to al-Qaeda -- which currently look tenuous -- in order to extend its free pass from Congress is an encouraging sign of increasing domestic skepticism. Hussein espouses precisely the secular Arab nationalism that Osama bin Laden and company love to hate, and it's difficult to imagine that the Iraqi regime -- which cares about its survival above all else -- would pursue a tactical alliance with the main target of the global war on terrorism. Human rights concerns about the Iraqi regime are more than valid. But war, especially the massive bombing that would likely kick it off, could greatly increase the suffering of ordinary Iraqis. The American public needs to vocally question the United States fighting an unjustifiable and very risky war in Iraq. Chris Toensing is editor of Middle East Report, a publication of the Middle East Research and Information Project (www.merip.org) based in Washington, DC. (c) Chris Toensing
Post #48,377 by ChrisR 8/6/02 11:43:30 AM Reply	My pet theory... ...is that Iraq is being set up as the next target should another terrorist attack be done on the US. Kind of a tit-for-tat strategy. The first attack cost the fundamentalists their stronghold in Afghanistan. Another attack will cost them Iraq. In the meantime, it appears to me that the US is just engaging in brinksmanship. If the US weren't pressing the issue, the EU would have lifted sanctions long ago and gone about business as usual. As it stands, the EU has to tow the line of continued isolation, in hopes of staving off the overthrow of the Baath party. I could be wrong and a U.S. invasion could be imminent. Or the reality of the threat to brinksmanship could be taken to a point of no return. But the current environment seems to foster a position where the U.S. is ready, willing and able to carry out an attack, but does not actually carry it out until some event triggers the response. Of course, the trick to brinksmanship is to not show your true hand, lest you be forced to play it one way or the other.
Post #48,508 by mhuber 8/7/02 12:46:45 AM Reply	But Iraq isn't fundie Saddam is quite the secularist. Except for a bit of opportunism in throwing some cash at the families of suicide bombers, he isn't on the same side as Osama. Would, perhaps, be at war with him if it weren't for Israel and the US being better targets. This stuff is way complicated. The reason for gearing up for an attack on Iraq is not complicated: GWB is under the impression that 9/11 gives him permission to do anything military he wants as long as the sand-colored uniforms are worn. And that makes this a good chance to restore the family honor. ---- United we stand Divided we dominate the planet without really trying
Post #48,512 by Ashton 8/7/02 3:51:34 AM Reply	Sheesh.. claw way to White House so you can work out all those 'issue's about bein the worthless son of an entire dynasty of mediocrities! (I mean, can it be That hard to one-up Poppy Bush?) Stella Dallas, I somewhere heard - was the first soap opera; late '30s maybe? Now we live in one while having to watch one played out at the Top. (When Nixon wept himself out of office, we had to bear his eulogy of a sainted mother) Is it time for free psychiatric help for all candidates for higher office: lest they kill us all (instead of daddy)? Let's get that repressed hostility focussed on the Correct target >>>\ufffd Ashton
Post #48,392 by Arkadiy 8/6/02 12:33:14 PM Reply	Iraq: Vietnam of 21st century? Really, all the elements are there: obscure idealogical cause, lackluster support of US population, huge gap in technology, an Admininstration unwilling to do whatever it takes to win, native population willing to fight(or not. However:), support from other countries/entities with willpower to waste all of their resources and spill blood by the rivers. Am I missing something?
Post #48,461 by Ashton 8/6/02 6:20:15 PM Reply	Don't think so: __it's Another crap shoot.. My guess is that the color of the leather seats in the new UAV remain quite higher on the list of daily Murican Peepul concerns than - a few hundred thousand more heaped dead burned Iraqi bodies. That and the stock market, natch - as to the timing of the above purchase. Now the Major consideration is.. can we get another reporter with uplink into Baghdad, in time to capture the marvellous fireworks display AND launch the attack so that it is most impressive on the Tee Vee? (And get a commitment from the sponsors, for the show - natch. Ad revenue to help pay for the cruise missiles = Govt. Efficiency '02, since we'll be goin it alone this rehash. Think of it as a Profitable HMO for War) Ashton

Welcome to IWETHEY!