Who said “take no action”?
Does only an invasion count as action?
What actions do you suggest we take? A reasonable alternative.
Economic sanctions…
- End blind support of Israel, with an eye to gaining support among other Arab nations.
- Increase UN presence in Iraq - tell France, et al, we can hold off on invasion if they support increased UN surveilance.
- Continue/step up inspections.
4.Create economic incentives for other Arab nations to back us.
Just a few, off the top of my head.
BTW, my son is on his way over there as we speak. He’s with a tank batallion.
Thanks for responding, I was playing the D.A. to try to keep the thread alive.
Here`s my view,
If the threat of bombing and violence does not convince Saddam to shape up, why would sanctions and other methods which take forever to implement make a difference?
Economic sanctions will do little. He doesnt care if his people are poor and starving. He has his oil and money and there are plenty of other countries out there for him to deal with. These sanctions, in reality, will hurt the common folk the most. They havent worked in Cuba.
From seal_clubber
- End blind support of Israel, with an eye to gaining support among other Arab nations.
- Increase UN presence in Iraq - tell France, et al, we can hold off on invasion if they support increased UN surveilance.
- Continue/step up inspections.
4.Create economic incentives for other Arab nations to back us.
I agree with these. I would like to see them before, during and after any millitary engagement. Or in leiu of.
I think some millitary pressure would be very effective.
Saddam would have to be willing to allow us more access to his country than he has in the past, way more.
A complete teardown of his millitary arsenal would be necessary too.
No, sadly this is something we want to avoid. The last thing you really want to do is destabilize the country so much so that Iran decides to annex it. Keep in mind the objective of any military action will be regime change, and not necessarily the destruction of the Iraqi war machine. WMD, obviously, but not the rest of it (talking about assets not actively engaged against us). I’d guess a small downsize at worst.
Nonsense, if we give Iraq military support ala Japan, Iran wouldn’t dare try to annex it.
I, personally, have faith in our government and in Colin Powell that what they are telling us is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Of course they cannot disclose the names of their informants. If you don’t trust our government, that’s your privilege and right.
Most of the Arab nations are on our side for they fear Hussein, and have reason to fear him more than we do. They cannot wholeheartedly go along with us due to public consumption. However, the only way that the Arab people will be appeased vis a vis Israel if there were no Israel. The US is not supporting Israel blindly. We tried to negotiate peace many times. A few short years ago, we got Israel to agree to most of what Arafat demanded, and he turned around, went back home, and started the terrorist attacks anew.
It must be noted that many of the Arab nations also fear that if Iraq becomes a democracy, their feifdom will be in jeopardy also. This is particularly true of Saudi Arabia.
Also, to “end blind support of Israel” is to give some support to terrorist acts perpetuated by the PA against Israel. I don’t want to get in a debate about this, and I’m sure there are many threads already on this issue, but since it was brought up here, I thought I’d bring up the fact that we don’t give Israel “blind support.”
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have a Need to Know. This is still nominally a democracy and if we’re going to war I, as a citizen, need some pretty damn good evidence that we’re doing the right thing. “'Cause I said so!” does not qualify. Neither does “We’ve got good evidence, but we’re not going to show it to you” does not qualify, either. Neither do aerial photographs of anonymous-looking bunkers and an earnest-looking Colin Powell.
I`d like to think we could have a millitary base in Iraq, if things work out. Just for presence, and to fend off future lunatics.
wow, three at once!
You didnt say what you would like to see. What would convince you? Specifically, what info could be made public that would not endanger people. Or what can we make public that we dont want Saddam to know at this time. I think much, much more will come to light once we get involved.
I believe that I am capable of recognising overwhelming evidence when it is presented.
I may not know what that is yet, its rather like and elephant, you can describe one all you like but not be able to picute it.When you see one for real, hen you know.
Bush has said several times in the past that he would like to see a regime change, the worst thing that could happen from his point of view is that evidence of disposal turns up.
His aim is to get rid of Saddam, but nowadays it is dressed up as a WoMD issue.
Where are all the Arab states ?
Why are their armies not on the Iraq border sabre rattling ?
Those Arab states ostensibly have the most to gain, if the destruction of the current Iraqi regime leads to more stability, as the Bush administration does not hesitate to mention.
It is not just the toppling of Saddam that is the issue, it is the liklehood of having to stay in the region for many years to ensure that Iraq does not implode and become a failed state like Eirtrea, or Sierra Leone.
It is about having a large and unwelcome western military presence in such a stratgically, and economically(oil) important region.
Western forces could be stuck there for a long time to come, Israel will be a target for Saddam, and despite best efforts it may become involved in retaliation.
A puppet government installed by the western powers will not have much credibility with Arab states and will soon be a source of discontent.
Remember the Shah? He was hated by Arabs but supported by the West, and the revolution that followed with its attendant regional effects led directly to the situation we have in Saddam Hussain.
We could all too easily end up with a region that is even more unstable, with even more fundamentalist terrorist groups arraigned against us, and without a way of safely withdrawing from Iraq.
We really do need to have Arab forces involved militarily and possibly running the peace keeping operation that follows, and Western forces once they have completed their invasion need to be withdrawn as soon as is possible.
I could concede that the onus is on Saddam to demonstrate compliance in order to not be in breech of the resolutions. However, if the U.S. wants an invasion the onus is on Bush et al to prove a clear threat.
Personally I am in favour of something like seal_clubber’s #2, big step up in inspectors(you know they got quite a few weapons before they left last time). If Iraq become truly menacing we could demand a complete stand down.(maybe leave some infantry for border patrol?)
We have ample ability to knock down/isolate Iraq in short order. Even our second or third choice shouldn’t be such a deadly and costly one as an invasion or bombing campaign.
Seal_clubber
And we all know that the NY Times doesn’t have any bias or agenda… 
The Need to Know is not determined by someone saying “'Cause I said so!”. I’m sure you would like to know exactly when an attack (if there is one) will take place and what the battle plan will be. Guess what… so does Saddam.
I think that if it doesn’t, the president will be facing a lynch mob when the bill for his little escapade comes due.
I, personally, have no doubt whatsoever that Saddam’s got WMD.
So the fuck what?
The last paragraph of Safire’s article above asks a very interesting question re the Al Qaeda folks up in the north of Iraq: Why haven’t we taken care of them via a small proxy war fought with the assistance of the considerable number of pro-American Kurds up there? Because this war is not about protecting Americans from the threat of terrorism: it’s about settling old scores.
From http://europe.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.powell/
Notice how the Al Qaeda enclave is omitted from this formulation. They care nothing about that. If anything shows you exactly what this war is really about, this does.
Keep in mind that if one of his WMDs gets in our country or a close ally and goes off somewhere, Bush will be under more pressure than if he goes to war now. The same people who dont want to take action to disarm him now are going to be crying later that we didnt do anything to stop Saddam (ala Bin Laden). When Bin and Co. attacked us on 9/11 people complained that we didnt do something to stop this, even though we knew about the potential from Bin.
We have way more information about Saddam and his potential now. If we don`t stop him and he does something crazy, all you naysayers will be up in arms and wrigning your hands because nothing was done.
Will it really take another 9/11 (perped by Saddam) to convince some of you?
If He does acquire nukes then there is nothing we can do to stop him.
We need to rid the world of this menace before history repeats itself.
If Saddam is brought down then any Al Qaeda in the country will follow.
We have an obligation to the rest of the world, as a superpower and a moral country, to assist in ridding the world of such threats.