This question is not about being for or against the war in Iraq, Bush, conservatives, Democrats, etc. It just seems like with all the different rationales for the war, weapons of mass destruction, regime change, the war of terroism, and now mideast peace that this process is starting to look a little chaotic. Add to that negotiating with the UN to the last minute, but not needing them anyway stance, and it’s beginning to look like this pre-war phase is spiraling out of control.
Any opinions?
Jeff, I can’t add much to what you’ve said. I have found myself scratching my head at all the “Path to War” coverage. Path Schmath. Fish or cut bait already. It seems clear to me and most of the people I hang out with that the international community isn’t going to wake up tomorrow, or next week, or in a month and say, “George, we’ve been so foolish! Deploy! Deploy!”
I don’t remember this kind of build up before say, The Falkland Islands Incursion.
It would really be a shame to push ahead with a war just because the administration can’t find a dignified way to say, “Gee if no one else in the whole world thinks it’s a good idea we just won’t do it.”
is there even a dignified option available at this point?
People in the US must be mighty confused by now; what with the rationale or war changing weekly. No one has ever told them that an attack on Iraq is part of a grand strategy to impose US control on the world and is merely the beginning.
As an aside, I recommend that posters from the US stop using “we” when referring to possible US actions in Iraq unless you are an official in the Bush regime.
Bush regime. Nice ring to it.
The war was going to happen anyway, the moment GWB became pres.
(Ninth time I’ve posted this link so far, I think. I’m getting a bit obsessed, but so few people seem to acknowledge it.)
Well, it looks like we will be going with Saddam Hussein’s exile as the final rationale for the war.
your link jjimm basically seems to say that the war was going to happen because of Pres Clinton’s failed policy. It really didn’t matter who was Pres. It time this was had to be fought one way or another (gulf war style or in a few years trading nukes).
This is one of Bush’s strongest points, the situation is now going to happen. We can either wait or war now. If we wait we will be dealing with a stronger Iraq.
An aside.
I was playing a game of Civ (or Civ 2) a while back. I was way ahead in tech then any other nation. Even though I couldn’t have a treaty against the other nations developing WMD I did the equivliant of no-fly zones, would pillage their land and distroy their troops if I saw them, and would bomb their cities regularly. Basic containment tactits. Well, over time, the little basterds somehow got nukes. On one of their turns they nuked my capital, then went to talk to me. I assumed that they just had one so I refused to talk. They nuked 3 more of my cities before I got a turn.
How seriously are we supposed to take a call for war from an ultra-right wing conservative “think tank” led by Elliot Abrams, the villain of the Iran-Contra scandal? Aside from that, I believe you’re right about the war being inevitable, given another Bush in the White House.
Er… you did see the other signatories, didn’t you? Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld…?