I put this thread in GQ, because I’m just looking for as objective an answer as possible. Regardless of their validly, what are the messages being broadcasted in nations opposed to the US stance on Iraq?
For comparison I’m going to go out on a limb and offer what I think is the message our media is disseminating. For reference I get my most of my news from CNN, Newsweek, and the NYTimes.
[ul]
[li]Iraq is in violation of many UN resolutions and must be held accountable for its actions, by force if necessary[/li][li]Iraq has a history of internal and external aggression and posses a threat to the US and other nations, and must have its biological, chemical, nuclear, and conventional weapons capabilities investigated and neutralized, by force if necessary[/li][li]Containment and deterrence strategies alone will no longer ensure the safety of the American people; preemptive attacks are necessary when facing an adversary that does not appear to desire self-preservation [/li][li]Appeasing terrorists will only encourage further terrorism, and therefore confrontation is inevitable [/li][li]The Bush administration is not interested in removing Iraq to deflect attention away from current economic problems or the still unresolved threat of terrorist attacks on the homeland; Bush is not attempting to “wag the dog” [/li][li]Oil concerns are not a significant factor for US interest in Iraq[/li][li]US foreign policy is not significantly responsible for the attacks of 9/11[/li][li]If the situation were reversed any nation in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East would support unilateral action when similarly threatened[/li][/ul]
Each of these points has its proponents and opponents, but I think this is the general message that Americans are hearing. If you disagree as always I’m open to correction.
Iraq is not alone in this and did not, contrary to popular belief, kick out the previous inspection teams, they left of their own accord. Iraq is also now offering to allow those teams to return, and also has already provided access to the sites Tony Blair claimed were producing or were potentially producing chemical and/or biological agents and they have been seen to be uninvolved in those activities.
The existence of biological, chemical, and especially nuclear weapons is very much the subject of debate. So far the US and UK have shown nothing in the way of evidence that these weapons even exist particularly in the quantities implied. They have not threatened anyone in the region since the gulf war, nor have they threatened the US or our allies except for warnings of a defensive nature.
Doesn’t desire “self-preservation”? Saddam is a master of self-preservation. And why exactly don’t those containment nd deterrence strategies work any longer? Why is our nuclear arsenal no longer the deterrence it was during all of the cold war? Why now do we feel free to leave open the possibility of using these weapons ourselves even against states that do not possess them themselves? Where is the evidence of increased threat?
Iraq has not been shown to be a player in ANY terrorist actions against the US or our allies, with the exception of the attempted assassination of the former President Bush years ago. Iraq may feel some sympathy for the motives or actions of these terrorists but he has not been shown to support them with the exception of the palestinians. Even then the support has been in the form of payments to families of martyrs. Something or good friends the Saudis also do.
Then what are his motivations? Oil? likely. As well as your above reasons. US control of Iraqi oil would make us even stronger as well as seriously weakening Russian influence and profit in the area. The Russians stand to lose a lot if the US and our oil companies gain a strong presence in Iraq. Other oil producing nations would also lose a lot of their influence if these companies are able to fully develop the vast iraqi reserves. China and India are also becoming very dependent on middle eastern/caspian fuel supplies and will also find themselves very much the slaves of the energy controlling west. The possible ramifications and spread of this little war with Iraq could upset the relationships with virtually every country on earth. It may prove ultimately the most logical course or the safest to preserve our global pre-eminence, but does that make it right? Do we take what we want simply because we can? Are we now to become the Nation of Greed and self-service? We already use up a majority of the earths resources while only representing a small minority of the total population and still we seem willing to virtually steal what is still in the hands of others.
Yeah I bet Condoleeza does’nt care at all about oil now that they had to remove her name from that Tanker they commisioned in her honor… And Dubya I am sure has no interest inthe business his family has made their fortune with now that he is a humble public servant. Cheny and haliburton of course gave up their relationship, and the Carlyle group has no oil interests so they aren’t going to profit much…oh wait, don’t they have something to do with weapons contracting? well I am sure those interests have all taken a back seat to this imminent threat our country faces from Iraq what with those missiles that…oh wait they don’t have the range to hit diego garcia let alone the mainland USA. But scary none the less I suppose. I am sure Oil was not at all an issue in Afghanistan either, the fact that we now are resuming construction on a pipeline that had been stalled under taliban rule was just a fortunate coincidence. Good thing too since those oil companies had so many BILLIONS already invested in the development of that pipeline until the Taliban said they would maintain control of it.
Our president was “'significantly responsible” for those attacks both because of foreign policy ineptness, intelligence failures, and a strange “standing down” of our trillion dollar defense system. This genius spent twenty minutes AFTER hearing about our country being attacked befoer he made any rsponse at all, instead choosing to finish reading a childrens book. Thats leadership alrighty :rolleyes:
When exactly have we been theatened in any manner by Iraq? even during the Gulf war Iraq kept all his troops massed on what considered to be his rightful borders and other than his scud missile attacks never crossed into any other countries territory though for the months that it took us to get all of our assets over there that waas what we claimed was his intent. He stood his ground and we tore his army apart but he never even at the height of the war, threatend any of his neighbors with invasion (he did try to incite Israel to try to gain support but he didnt invade or threaten to invade his neighboring countries)
He has made no threats against us at all other than to warn us against attacking Iraq. We would come down hard on any other country that preemptively attacks another for such unsupported reasons. Should pakistan attack India to avert their possible threat? If other countries were allowed to use such tactics we would have been in another world war by now. If we continue down this road, a world war may be just what we get.
Hi Virtuosity, and welcome to the SDMB. I appreciate your concerns, I even agree with many of them. Check out this http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135083]thread and you’ll see what I mean. But you obviously didn’t read my post very closely. I’m not looking for opinions on this matter, those belong in the Great Debates forum.