As widely discussed in this thread, the ‘war on terror’ appears to be turning its sights towards Iraq. There’s no publicly available evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda were in cahoots. So if we conclude that Iraq has been this dangerous for years, would an attack on Iraq be happening regardless of 9-11?
Is Iraq more dangerous now than it was on September 10?
No would be my answer. Iraq is as dangerous as it was pre 11/9. They have been continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction without check from the UN observers*
What has changed since 11/9 is public opinion and the US administrations feelings towards Iraq.
The press conference yesterday with Blair once again standing firm behind the US has convinced me that Iraq is going to be hit by the West. I hope it’s quick and as free of bloodshed as possible. I also hope that the US and Britain will continue their commitments after the fact and not just leave the Iraqi people high and dry.
Scary stuff all round.
*That’s the reports anyway. I believe them but then again I could be being lied to.
This is what makes me think it might have been on the cards anyway. Why should the US administration’s attitude towards Iraq have changed? The portrayal of the situation to the public seems to be: “Now that one terrorist group knows it can perpetrate a seriously horrendous attack, then they’ll all be at it” - as evidenced by GWB’s speech yesterday:
But an attack of the magnitude and horror of 9-11 should already have been envisaged by US intelligence: it’s their job to work out nightmare scenarios and the possibility of them happening. Since there is little or no evidence to link Saddam to bin Laden, then the threat to ‘civilisation’ from Iraq is probably the same (or only a little more) as it was six months ago. Given that the alleged war plans appear to be drawing on the strength of public opinion in the US, an attack on Iraq in the next few months looks simply like opportunism. (BTW I am not an apologist for Hussein - I personally think that he and his entire cabinet should be assassinated without recourse to war).
Is Iraq more dangerous now than it was on September 10?
Yes. They’re 6 months closer to having nuclear weapons.
I’m not so sure I agree with that.
Take a peek at this…
Tony Blair may be continuing in his fine role as America’s lap dog, but I highly doubt he’ll get the needed support from the Parliament.
To answer the OP’s question, I’d say Iraq may not have been a bigger threat than they were on 10/9, but that’s not to say that that is still the case lately. I’m certain that the recent talks and warnings have increased Saddaam’s military preparedness.
A lot of folks (including King Abdullah) are warning of increased violence and escalating warfare should the US or UK attack Iraq. I tend to agree. Seeing as how the country “next on the list” is right next door, I have a feeling they may not stand as idly by as they did during Desert Storm.
Also, it looks as if there would be little to no Arab support, although I don’t think that fact alone would be detrimental to any operation.
That’s a good point. So what I’m asking is, do you think a military solution to this problem would be on the cards without the atrocitieis of 9-11?
Nietsche, from past precedent (cf. the manner in which George Galloway was handled by the whips over the Afghan campaign), I am not sure that back-bench, or even cabinet protests, would stop Blair’s support for proposed action.
A lot of Americans have been chomping at the bit to go after Iraq since the Gulf War. This whole “War on Terrorism” thing is just the excuse.
Is Iraq more dangerous? It depends on how one looks at it. On the one hand, Big Bad Hussein is probably looking at the Bitch-Slapping that the Taliban got and peed his pants… on the other hand, Afghanistan could be used as a “martyr country” for Iraqi people to rally around (note: I do not know if this is the case… I am merely posing a hypothetical).
However, one thing, I believe, is clear… Bin Laden’s example showed that if we do not deal with a problem as soon as we are aware of it, that problem will continue to grow. We know that there is a problem with Iraq’s behavior, that there has been a problem and that, most likely, there will continue to be a problem. If we don’t nip it in the bud, as it were, it could potentially turn into an even greater problem, one that can cost the lives of our allies… or even more Americans.
No, I don’t. I think 9/11 has been an invaluable wake-up call. Also, I’m thankful that we have a President who got into action when the phone rang.
No, Iraq wasn’t more dangerous on Sept 12 than on Sept 10.
And Japan wasn’t more dangerous on Dec 8, 1941.
Sometimes a large Democracy needs a wake-up call to make it sit up and realize what is going on outside its borders. That’s what happened on Sept. 11.
In general, I’d agree with you, as well as in the Afghanistan situation. But this situation could cause deeper divisions in Labour than any other it’s faced. Blair’s not going to support Bush at his own party’s peril. Keep in mind that the rest of the Labour camp is expressing the same reservations as some of the Arab countries. We’re going to have to wait and see, but I would be very surprised if Blair does offer up material support.
Yes for 2 reasons. 1 Hussein smells blood. 2 He has a proven attack plan against America that has not been secured against.
That’s an interesting thought. I interpret this as “because there’s been a successful atrocity visited on the contiguous 50 states, Hussein perceives vulnerability.” Would that be a correct assessment of what you were saying? Is there any truth to this, or is it just speculation?
Nobody but Hussein can say for sure what he perceives but it makes sense. Osama and his ilk seem to be convinced that their minor bombings can literally take down an empire so it is very possible Hussein could be under similar delusions. In any case isn’t any enemy more dangerous when his target is under attack from another source? You can try to box him in like Castro but that creates more resentment than just dealing with it once and for all. Anyway he is a pussy and really can only kill Kurdish refugees and weak Kuwaiti defenses. He played to a draw with Iran so any question of is he dangerous is relative and doesn’t apply to much to the U.S. except for stable fuel prices, which makes him politically dangerous more than anything.