Saddam hasn’t done anything within recent years to piss us off any further. In fact, Iraq agreed to allow U.N inspectors in a little while ago.
Cynic that I am, The only reason I can see is that Bush is trying to raise his popularity rating to get reelected. Riding on the corpses of the 9/11 victims to victory in 2004 may not be enough, so he’s deciding to wage war on Iraq to get the country to support him.
Personally, unlike the other 90% of the American public, I’m not going to fall for this tactic. Bush is not getting my vote in 2004.
I’m trying to keep an open mind about it, but I haven’t seen much to convince me that it isn’t a re-election tactic. Especially after Hussein’s offer to resume weapon inspections was rejected.
Which offer are you guys talking about? I’m not aware of any. AFAIK, he has offered to begin talks about letting inspectors back in. Not grant unfettered access to anyone.
This move shouldn’t surprise anyone, and I’m glad no one in the Bush administration is taking it seriously. This is a card Saddam has to play, and I think everyone expects him to play it, but I don’t think anyone really believes he’ll eventually allow unrestricted access. All he’s trying to do is make himself look like a good, compliant, harmless guy. CNN has a good article about it here.
Here are what I think are the main points:
Here’s a guy who’s already signed an agreement, then renegged on it, and is now proposing to talk about making a new agreement (using an old, rejected agreement, no less!). And we’re supposed to take him seriously?
It’s a re-election tactic. They’ve even said that there won’t be any attack before the elections. For me, the tactic backfired. I voted for Bush in 2000, but will probably vote for the Democrat in '04 (unless it’s Al Gore again, in which case I’ll probably vote for a minor Third Party guy).
For the record, I don’t think that there’s going to be any attack at all. Too many Americans would come home in body bags, which is why Daddy Bush didn’t try to overthrow Hussein in 1991. It would be far worse today because no other relevant nations are willing to help us this time. Mark my words: if Bush gets re-elected, they’ll be a “diplomatic breakthrough” which will prevent the need for a war. Hopefully, my prediction will untested, because the Democrats will find someone better than Gore, and win the election.
Good point flyboy88, it was an offer to talk about letting inspectors back in, not a granting of total access. But when offers to even discuss it are rejected, and the response back is ‘Regime change is our goal’, it seems to me that the administration is doing everything that can to make sure they get their little election-boosting war.
WSLer, do you have further info or a cite to back this up? Bush was the CINC, and Powell and Schwarzkopf were bound to follow his orders. If he had really wanted to go downtown, all he had to do was order it. I’m sure they voiced their opinions, which were that the campaign had achieved the objectives it was supposed to. Your post seems to imply Bush ordered it but P&S did not comply.
If by “Bush” you mean the current occupant of the White House, George W. Bush, then I don’t think HE’S the one trying to kick Saddam out of power.
I think intuitively, a lot of us have suspected for some time that the current Bush administration is simply a puppet administration for Daddy and his cronies so they can continue what they started in '91.
As far as I’m concerned, this latest round of sabre rattling proves it. I don’t think a single ORIGINAL thought or policy has ever once crossed George W’s little brain.
The desire to get reelected is probably part of it, but I think the administration also considers Hussain to be destabilizing and threatening to US interests. I agree with them there, but I’m afraid that removing him would also be destabilizing and threaten US interests.
I don’t really see this as a tactic for reelection. From what I understand, Saddam has just been on the back-burner with regard to Bush’s (and others’) efforts to wipe out the axis of evil. I actually think it could hurt Bush in some ways, as I’ve heard some blame laid at his father’s feet for not taking care of Saddam in the first place. Though I don’t personally care for Bush, I don’t necessarily think this is just a ploy on his part.
My understanding is that Saddam still considers Iraq to be at war with the US, and has never ceased doing so. I’ve read/heard the reports of Iraq continuing to shoot at planes in the no fly zone, and this seems consistent with an attitude of being at war. In a Frontline (I think) report, it appeared that there were two distinct camps: Yes, Saddam is still a threat, but if he were gone his replacement would probably be much worse. And - Yes, Saddam is a terrible threat, his main goal is to aquire nuclear weapons and blast the hell out of us, we need to do something yesterday!
I think one way or the other something will have to be done, either because Bush chooses to now, or Saddam forces our hand later. One of the defectors in the interview (don’t remember his name, but he was part of the nuclear program) said that he believes Saddam does not have what he wants yet, but guesstimates he (Saddam) will in 7 years.
It doesn’t help that there is no other nation (other than maybe Iran) that would happily blow a nuke on US soil when given the first opportunity. We know for a fact that they are actively developing nukes. We know from past experience that they will use whatever weapons they have at their disposal. Israel stopped their nuke program the first time, we stopped them the second time and we’re going to have to stop it again.
Well, I don’t really know how to reply to this “it’s just a re-election tactic”. Kinda like saying “I just use my lungs to breathe”. Yeah dislodging Hussein is a re-election tactic, but so is everything else Bush does. Not just Bush, but every damn elected official since 300 years ago. It’s what politicians do. It’s in their job description, “Make my people happy so they will keep me as their leader”. That was how the system was designed to work. That’s what politicians are bred to do.
I think what most of y’all mean is that Bush is doing this soley, or at least primarily because he wants to be reelected. I gotta disagree. Iraq has been giving us the finger for the past 10 years now. We’ve been attacked and, yes, it’s in our national security to maintain stability in that region. Iraq does’nt even try to hide that they want us destroyed. Somone in this thread has already pointed this fact out. As a result, we are ethically justified in intervening in Iraq (see Kant). Now what do we do with Iraq? We gotta do something. Well folks, we take the path of least resistance. We try to overthrow Hussein. Better that than building American outposts in iraq and breeding with their women until our differences are negligable. Contrary to what 15 year-old boys think, nukng them all a’int gonna work either. So let me sum this up for some of y’all: Iraq wants us gone-> We don’t want to be attacked (again) -> we gotta make iraq not want to attack us->
we remove hussein from power.
Simple enough and getting reelected does’nt even fit in the picture.
Now to deal with the whole “Did’nt take care of Iraq during the gulf war” issue. What happened was this: Bush needed to build an international coalition before he went into somewhere as unstable as the Middle East. We still had the Vienam syndrome lurking in the American psyche, we could’nt afford another loss like that. Now, not alot of nations were going to join this coalition because some of our lesser fans were accusing us of neo colonialism. So Bush had to guarantee to the whole world that we were not on a campaign of middle eastern conquest, but one of stability. Well when we had Iraq down on it’s kness at the end of the war, delivering the coup de grace to hussien would not exactly look too stabilizing to the world. Plus, if we decided to go straight to Bagdad, we would be entirely alone in the world. So that is pretty much why we did’nt finish them off.
This time we wanna take him out cause circumstances are alittle different mostly cause the 911 attacks are giving us alot more credibility, ethically. Well, you guys can figure out the rest, I hate typing this much.