Saddam Hussein openly mocks the USA, and seems content fulfilling the role of the No. 1 anti-American scourge in the Middle East.
Iraq has fought a war with Iran, and invaded Kuwait (both other Islamic countries). They have reportedly used despicable weapons on a sector of their own citizens, the Kurds. They are also allegedly guilty of supporting suicide bombings by Palestinians in Israel.
But are all the arguments in favor of attacking Iraq just purely propaganda by the United States with the eventual objective of locking up a steady, cheap oil supply from this region?
Is such rhetoric as “Weapons of mass destruction”, “Axis of Evil”, etc, a fair assessment? Plenty of countries have MWD’s, why pick on Iraq? Is it just a family feud between the houses of Bush and Hussein, unsettled from the Gulf War days?
In a nutshell, do you think the USA has the moral right to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power?
Iraq has the winning combination[ul][]They’re developing nuclear weapons[]They’re belligerant. They have started unprovoked wars against Iran, Kuwait, and Israel.[]They have shown a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, having gassed many of their own people.[]Their leader has demonstrated dishonesty, cruelty, and a willingness to kill any number of people without compunction.[]Their anti-American rhetoric suggests a risk that they might choose to attack us or to help al Qaeda attack us.[]Their leader’s pasts actions suggest a lack of judgment (or perhaps a lack of sanity.)They do not have nukes yet, so there’s still time to disarm them without a nucldear threat to us or to some other country.[/ul]No other country matches the entire list. Forcibly removing Saddam is the least risky course. Nobody really knows what he would do with nuclear weapons, and I’d rather not find out.
Well, they DID try to kill Bush I. I think that should count for something. And there are still bits of evidence that may tie the Iraqis to the first WTC attack, the OKC attack, and the second WTC attack.
Also, Iraq is harboring a lot of al-Qaida terrorists (and reportedly killed Abu Nidal because he refused to train them), Iraq is paying Palestinians to kill Israelis, and Iraq DID invade Kuwait and fire missiles at Israel just for the hell of it.
Oh, and Saddam tries to shoot down American aircraft almost daily. He hasn’t succeeded simply because he’s no damned good at it.
I would point out that the US and the UK have unilateraly extended the no-flight zone area in Irak, a move which isn’t recognized by anybody else, in particular not by the UN.
If you Google on “Nichols Iraq Philippines”, you’ll find out. It’s not exactly proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but Sam Stone’s “bits and pieces” characterization is pretty accurate.
And Bush I tried to kill Saddam. To what “bits of evidence” do you refer to with regards to WTC I, OKC, or 9/11?
Really? Got a cite? Al Quaida and Iraq make strange bedfellows. Iraq is run as a secular society, with artists painting nudes, alcohol in the stores, and unveiled women on the streets. Iraq makes Saudi Arabia look downright liberal. As I understand it, al-Quaida wants to establish Muslim theocracies across the middle east (probably the world), and are extreme fundamentalists. Idealogically, they don’t have much in common. Except, perhaps, a common enemy in the “Great Satan”. And boy, are we willing to play the role.
Please correct me, but my understanding is that they are paying the families of palestinian suicide bombers. Perhaps the difference is trivial, but with regards to this OP, it isn’t exactly relevant. Just as an aside, does the US supply arms to Israel?
Let me guess: the ones flying over Iraq. Trust me, I’m not defending Saddam, just recognizing that your first paragraph needs support, and your second and third paragraph really missed the target, as framed in the OP.
And let’s look at december list…
[ul]
[li] They’re developing nuclear weapons[/li][/ul]
Don’t we already have nuclear weapons? Isn’t a bit hypocritical for us to want to prevent them from having any? Perhaps it has become our responsibility to rid the world of nukes - except for us, of course. Someone has to police the world…
[ul]
[li] They’re belligerant. They have started unprovoked wars against Iran, Kuwait, and Israel.[/li][/ul]
And if we invade Iraq, don’t you think most of the world will look at us as starting an “unprovoked war” (unless someone can demonstrate what the provocation was)?
[ul]
[li] They have shown a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, having gassed many of their own people.[/li][/ul]
Pop Quiz: Who is the ONLY country that has triggered a nuclear device during a war?
[ul]
[li] Their leader has demonstrated dishonesty, cruelty, and a willingness to kill any number of people without compunction.[/li][/ul]
I’ll give you that one. But by itself, it does not address the OP, unless they are killing Americans without compunction.
[ul]
[li] Their anti-American rhetoric suggests a risk that they might choose to attack us or to help al Qaeda attack us.[/li][/ul]
Rhetoric…suggests…risk…might choose. Has our policy towards them been any different?
[ul]
[li] Their leader’s pasts actions suggest a lack of judgment (or perhaps a lack of sanity.)[/li][/ul]
Well, I can’t argue that one either. But again, alone or even with dishonesty/cruelty issue, that doesn’t make them particularly unique.
[ul]
[li] They do not have nukes yet, so there’s still time to disarm them without a nucldear threat to us or to some other country.[/li][/ul]
Again, it is our police role. I understand the logic here, but wonder how this plays outside the US. Led by a broad international coalition, perhaps, but unilateral action by the US? I don’t know…
No. But I am sure hoping that the administration has some hard evidence they haven’t produced yet to backup all the hawk talk. If they are truly a threat to the US, I’d even enlist. But the case is yet to have been made.
Actually, the attack on the Stark was recognized by a lot of people at the time as a ham-fisted attempt to draw the U.S. into the Iran-Iraq war. Beefing up U.S. presence in the Gulf was bad for Iran, after all.
Oh, and I can’t make up my mind whether that OKC thing is just a case of Saddam Hussein popping up in somebody’s ink blot or out and out paranoia. Either way, it’s utter nonsense.
Great cite, Sam Stone. We’ve got the two advocates, a local TV reporter and an author, putting forward a conspiracy theory.
To believe it, you would have to believe that penetrating the Iraqi intelligence agency would be as simple as taking a trip to see the relatives in the Phillipines (if Terry could, why couldn’t the CIA?). You’d also have to believe that there are FBI agents that are conspiring to keep the truth from the American people. And even if you do believe it, it only asserts that Iraqi agents may have given Terry Nichols bomb making tips.
OK, so I see what you meant by “bits”. I’m a bit slow, but I’m catching on. We’ve got two Iraqis and one Palestinian involved in WTC 1. We’ve got 20 Sauds in the 9/11 attack.
Saudi Arabia is our friend. Iraq is our enemy. Maybe if I repeat is over and over to myself, I’ll get the hang of it.
My pleasure…
From this site , decaration of the secretary of defense J. Perry, on september 3, 1996 :
*We have extended the no-fly zone in the southern region from 32 degrees to 33 degrees. This will be effective at noon tomorrow. This will substantially weaken Saddam Hussein’s ability to pursue military adventures in the south *
Fromthis page :
*Perry said that the French were flying alongside American and British pilots in a southern no-fly zone, but French officials said their planes would refuse to go above the 32nd Parallel into the expanded no-fly zone. Russia’s foreign minister, Yevgeny Primakov, issued his second denunciation of what he called unilateral American action. * In this piece , the USAF Lt Col. Dennis M. Jaugh writes (amongst other things interesting at first glance):
*After the October 1994 crisis, the United States declared a no-drive zone south of 32 degrees, then expanded the no-fly zone north to 33 degrees in September 1996. *
I read all the posts in this OP and I find that a major issue has been side stepped. Hussein got power in Iraq by killing people. If you disagree with Hussein he just kills you. It’s nice and easy and well documented. He got his power by killing those who disagreed with him. Hussein’s only goal is to increase his power. Killing people who do not agree with him is his basic operarating procedure.
Sleestak,
I don’t disagree with you saying that S. Hussein is an evil dictator. But there’s no shortage of evil dictators around. So, if this is the basis for attacking Irak, fine. But, then I’d have to ask :
Why not attacking North-Korea instead? Or the backward, repressive and islam fundamentalism-funding Saudi Arabia?
Certainly I’m morally opposed to a unilateral, unprovoked attack on another country, even when the attacker is such a fine, upstanding, all-round-wonderful bunch of folks as us, and the attackee such a dreary pack of dictatorial thieves as Saddam and his followers. Prefer to think in terms of realpolitik? OK, it’s my view that the long-term political fallout of carrying out an invasion that basically the entire rest of the world opposes will trump any short-term joy at seeing the back of Saddam.
To throw my .02 at some of the other points raised so far:
Maybe, but it seems more and more that this may in part be a rather nasty Bush personal vendetta. See below.
I had to look this up myself. This refers to a large car bomb discovered along the parade route during the elder Bush’s visit to Kuwait after the Gulf war. Apparently, the FBI and CIA felt the explosives most likely were supplied from Iraq. For those who need a refresher on this incident, try Googling under the phrase “Bush assassination attempt”.
Which of these three countries are publically demanding that the US invade Iraq? Hell, according to Bush, Iran is an implacable enemy in need of ‘regime change’ as well. If they have given the US a go-ahead to invade on their behalf, they have kept it mighty quiet.
One would presume that if this issue was laid to rest by the successful prosecution of the Gulf War.
Now, I’ll throw out one more potential reason for the US rush to invasion that I haven’t seen mentioned: fear that if Israel determines that Iraq is close to successful development of a nuclear device, it will take things into its own hands, with options ranging from Dimona-style air raids on suspected Iraqi weapons or nuclear facilities to a pre-emptive nuclear strike of their own.
Hey, I think it makes as much sense as any other explanation, and more than some. Until Bush comes clean with what this is really about, speculation is all I’ve got.
