I don’t know what you mean by “playing politics”. The Bush administration, and the Clinton administration before it, have settled on “regime change” as the policy of the United States regarding Iraq. If effectively carrying out this policy and executing his goals in a manner that doesn’t leave the UN a leg to stand on is “playing politics”, then so be it.
Hey, the UN insisted that they get involved. If it turns out that they’re incompetent without the assistance of the United States, is that our problem?
You’re on. And for clarity, an air campaign doesn’t qualify, and neither does Afghan-style Special Forces stuff. I’m talking actual invasion of Iraq. Can’t happen, won’t happen, and I look forward to my lunch.
So by this logic, the United States never actually “invaded” Afghanistan? Why doesn’t the placement of US Special Forces in country count as an invasion?
I think Pearl Harbor Day put you in a nostalgic mood, minty green, and you’re just itching to see a latter-day Patten and Rommell go head to head with columns of heavy armor across the burning desert. If Rumsfeld continues to perfect his art of the swift kill with minimal forces needed, will you consider that a let-down or a “cheat” somehow?
Sure sounds like playing politics to me. And speaking of incompetence, Bush didn’t have to go along with this inspection business. If the intellegence you speak of is all that is needed to go to war then this thing could have started weeks ago, unnecessary delay for Sadam to get ready. The UN isn’t in the spy business, we are. If we have critical information and don’t share it, it’s not their fault. So maybe Bush wanted the Iraqis to release their document so he could refute it with this intellegence. No reason for him to wait on the inspections now is there? So Bush will reveal this information tomorrow, is that your prediction? I guess we’ll see.
“Swift kill”? Sorry, I must have missed it where we killled, Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Abdullah Abdullah, etc. Bush’s handling of Afghanistan was a colossal blunder that we will regret for many years to come. And no, it wasn’t an “invasion.” It was a proxy war.
Our forces were in the ground in Iraq, and we sure did change (i.e., kill) that regime. None of the people you cite have any control over state resources any more, and at least one (Osama) is likely dead but unprovably so. I guess I’ll leave it to you and David B to quibble over the definition of “invasion”. But if I were David, and you were being a bit weaselly like this, I’d just throw up my hands and mail you a couple of McDonalds coupons.
Besides the size of Bush’s privates, why do you think we won’t have war. Bush may feel he has to make war after the way he’s talked about Saddam. It’s the other way around, it would take courage to back off.
I thought you were the one saying that Bush should take the time and trouble to “get the most support from the largest number of countries and form the largest coalition” he could.
'Cause Saudi Arabia has already told Bush to piss off, because there will be no coalition, because three permanent members of the Security Council will not approve it, because Europe strongly opposes it, and because it will further estrange the U.S. from every country in the region except for Kuwait.
If it is proven Saddam has WMD and refuses to disarm then the US has no other recourse to back down because the UN doesnt have the balls to back up its own resolutions to the detriment of itself?
I find that as hard to beleive as chumpsky’s vitriolled anti-American, end of the world concspiracy theories. Underestimating Bush and his privates have cost the Taliban and Osama and his cronies quit a bit. Not only that, Blair stated “If Saddam refuses to cooperate in any way at all then he must be disarmed by force.” I highly doubt that Bush or Blair will back down just because a couple members have wet feet. And IIRC, the French, Germans, Russians, and a few other members “strongly opposed” any new resolutions on Iraq.
Now, I do not see a legitimate reason for Bush pushing a war unless Saddam resisted disarming. I do not think he will try, no matter what these chicken little handwringers run around shrilly espousing about the administration. And my assertion is if Bush did fail to disarm him by force, then he would have failed in his duty of protecting the “free peoples of the free world” and his allies and our interests in the mideast.
If the UN refuses to forcefully stop Iraq from having WMD, he has a free hand to do what he wants. And that means he will have nuclear capabilities in a short time. If anyone did not think that would be a threat to the US and her allies I would like to know why not.
I would also like to know if anyone here honestly believes Saddam does not have WMD. He has stated over and over to the world and the preliminary reports of the dossier says the same. If that were true why would he have resisted the inspections in '96 and endured more sanctions if he dissarmed anyways.
It is possible he will surrender any that are found with just a “shucks you caught me.” But for some reason (must be the bush controlled media brainwashing) I highly doubt it.
Sure I think Bush should create as large a coalition as he can, which seems beside the point. I don’t see the logic of what you wrote above, but hey . . .
See if you can find Qatar on a map, then tell me how we’ll launch a ground invasion of Iraq from Qatar.
I’m presupposing, like Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, that the inspectors will find nothing. If they do, that’s a whole other kettle of fish. For purposes of lunch, however, I’ll take that risk.
Oh wait, I misinterpreted milroyj’s comment. Sorry, you’re correct, the government of Qatar will still probaly be happy with us (though the people won’t). I should have said “it will further estrange the U.S. from every significant country in the region except for Kuwait.”
