Israel has been begging the US to attack Iraq, and the sooner the better. So Israel’s policy supports an Iraq invasion.
I don’t know whether or not it’s been on US TV, but Iraq has been regularly inviting British journalists into the facilities that have been mentioned in the dossier, and given them unfettered access to anywhere they want to go. Granted that these people aren’t trained inspectors, but the Iraqis haven’t prevented them from viewing anything they want to see, with TV cameras. Mind you, they might be doing this:
Click here to find out who!
Lets get back to the heart of the OP.
Well unfortunaty Blair and No. 10 doesn’t hold that view. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=336472
and
So Blair seems to favour going down the UN route rather that attacking ASAP.
That appears to drive a wedge in between the US and the UK view, or do you think we are viewing a clever ‘good cop bad cop’ scenario?
A fairly unsubtle ‘Good cop, bad cop’ at that - Tony Blair wheedling away - “See, my friend here, he’s a leeedle crazy, and we all know you did it, so why not make it easy on yourself?”
Either that or it’s a fairly poor carrot-and-stick scenario - the stick being the threat of war, the carrot being the absence of the stick!
Blair has never supported anything other than a UN mandate/resolution – reports may, at times, have conjured a different perspective but if nothing else, Blair is master of the ambiguous, snake-hipped soundbite. He wouldn’t have the same Cabinet unless he did, nor do I think he personally wanted to go any other route.
Also, Bush knows Blair can’t do anything (from a domestic POV) without a UN mandate – if Bush wants an ally, he needs the UN. Which suits Blair every which way.
Are you trying to imply that Tony is more politically adept than Our Leader? Even, perhaps, that he is more intelligent?
You know, London, we could just raise you guys rent. Already got your bridge.
Word to the wise.
Bush wont be happy unless her can get another right wing puppet government supporting him in the ME.
Colin Powell stated that they would like to see a regime change, even if Saddam complies with weapon checks.
Just keep that Dino juice flowing…
It’s all to do with Dean Martin ?
This gentleman can shed some light on this matter. And he seems to think people like yourself are full of the proverbial doo doo.
Well I think Scott Ritter is full of the proverbial doo doo. And, most Americans agree with me. Even Scott Ritter agrees with me, based on what he was saying 4 years ago! He has been debated on this board, and he came off badly. The man has no remaining credibility.
If history is to be any judge, this whole mess is a lose - lose situation.
When you boil it all down, Hussein is a despotic madman who’s proven he’s willing and able to use WMD’s. Iraq can’t be trusted with regards to inspections (unless you want to believe his paid-off mouthpiece, Scott Ritter). Is a cite really necessary?
The UN continues to prove that one-worldism is an idealistic dream. It’s too impotent and too factionalized to accomplish anything.
That leaves American boys (and a few NATO forces thrown in for good measure) to once again do the heavy lifting. (Read; bleeding, dying, leaving widows and orphans in their wake)[sub]Either that or you let the Israelis do it and ignite WWIII.[/sub]
Here’s the problem with invasion of Iraq:
American military forces have never militarily captured a city the size of Baghdad. It’s a large city of over 4 million people.
To draw a historical metaphor:
At the close of WWII, April 1945, 1.3 Million Russian troops, with TOTAL air and artillery superiority and very little resistance (unless you want to call a Volkssturm of old men, women, and children with shovels resistance) took 300,000 CASULATIES in the capture of Berlin (a city of roughly the same size as Baghdad).
I for one, don’t think any crisis, especially one half a world away is worth that much American blood…oil or no oil, national interest or no national interest.
Isolationism is sounding more and more to me like a better policy.
Lovely use of the ad hominem, december. Of all people, you’re the last one who should be claiming others have been throughly debuked on this board. Your reputation, on this board, carries about as much weight as Saddam’s in the international arena.
Nonetheless, would you please expand a bit on this point you made…
Just exactly what was he saying four years ago that in any way supports what you’re saying today?
Sorry, I do not intend to re-debate the Scott Ritter issue. You’ll have to do your own research on this one. You could try the Straight Dope search engine…
Gosh, it’s all just so assumptive. There are endless alternatives to an attack at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow. Let’s assume that the USA is going to attack regardless. (Looks like that is what is going to happen anyway.) How about getting some of the other responsible nations to assist us? Might take more time, but it sure would be easier than conducting a war 10,000 miles away without any local bases to assist. Even in 'Nam we had Thailand, Phillipines, Australia, etc to make logistics a little easier. How about brushing up on our relationship skills first? The Administration’s attitude is that it isn’t worth the bother. Frankly, all the chickenhawks haven’t thought this through, they are too busy trying to get some glory before the elections. How about some intelligence gathering? Like finding out where these command centers and weapons facilities are. Then dropping a bunch of bunker buster bombs on them short of an all out attack.
I’m a somewhat liberal partisan, and I think that we should eventually get rid of Hussein, but I think that the current crew are complete bozos who are doing it the wrong way for the wrong reasons. They are alienating the entire world first rather than making the case and gathering allies simply because their FU attitude has cost them all of their credibility in other nations with the exception of the UK, and a lot there too. I suspect this is intentional. The peaceful order that was developed since the Gulf War has cost the arms manufacturers dearly, and it isn’t too difficult to see who those people are: same as the oil interests: Bush I, Cheney, etc. etc. The demand for authorization before the election is transparent on its face. While it looks like it will happen, election fears is not the correct reason.
Unemployment, war, recession. Looks like Bush hit the trifecta. As he has said on numerous occasions: it would be a lot easier if he were a dictator.
Excerpts from a Scott Ritter Interview on FNC from 9/12/2002
Ah hindsight. Such a wonderful thing.
You necroed a nearly 9 year old thread for that?
Not that it took hindsight; the war was obviously both stupid and evil from the beginning.
We have recently become more tolerant of zombie threads, but I really see no point to bringing this one back to life–particularly for that odd comment.
Closed.
[ /Moderating ]