Things Bush apparently doesn't need to attack Iraq

[Jaakko]

Dan, I suppose it's all about what you guys want your president to be. Right now it seems Despot of the Month.

A little joke by G.W. Bush, paraphrased:

"Things would be a lot easier if this country was a dictatorship, provided I was the dictator."

Now that should bring some controversy...

[Jaakko]

Dino, I think it's the War Powers Act or some such, allowing the prez to make war for 60 days w/o congressional approval. I believe it was done to ensure that a political struggle wouldn't cripple the country's ability to defend itself.

[DanS]

"Personally, I'd like to see a case for why he doesn't need this."

Depending on the action, he might have enough money to do it. IIRC, he has a war fund of about $10-15 B already appropriated and authorized for FY '03.

[DanS]

"Now that should bring some controversy..."

Why should that be controversial? Bush is the duly elected Commander In Chief. He is working within the constitutional bounds of his office.

[Lincoln]

Bush has not made a decision whether or not to attack Iraq. This is the time for interested parties to voice their opinions and give their advice. So far we have mainly heard from the Nevil Chamberlin crowd. This may very well be all bluff so that Sadam can be overthrown by other means. I personally do not believe there will be a war unless Sadam is directly linked to terror organizations. Of course it is only a matter of time before that evidence comes forth in my opinion. I would be very surprised if he is not involved actively in terrororists activities. Leaving him be if that is the case is suicide for the portion of the world that does not approve of fanatics flying planes into buildings filled with civilians. Wishing that evil people will go away usually does not work as history has proved.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jaakko
Chris,Well of course Saddam has violated the ceasefire, but being powerless against US airpower, he's just managed to turn even more of his remaining SAM batteries to scrap metal.
But that's pretty shaky grounds for an invasion, considering that all the hubbub has been about WMD and terrorists.

There comes a time when you have to act.
How many more useless sactions will be levied?
An attack ends this nonsense, once and for all, no more sanctions, no more games.
Saddam loves to posture and threaten, and I'm reminded of an old saying:
'Be careful what you wish for, you may get it".
He will reap what he sowed, and don't think military activity has no adverse effect on the morale of an enemy, the terror forces are human, and continous defeats take an extreme toll that once in a million shots like 9/11 can't cure.
Bare in mind, if the US had listened to it's allies, the Taliban would still be running Afghanistan (not that it's in great shape, but it's still better then those guys).

Regarding the UN, so you are against the US ditching its UN agreements, yes?

I'm against the concept of the UN, it was an idea risen out of the ashes of WWII that has outlived it's usefulness.

[TheStinger]

If the US attack and get rid of Saddam very quickly i.e. a few days, what will the arabs say then, come back Saddam we love you.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Personally, I'd like to see a case for why he doesn't need this.

I suspect that it is based on tenuous precedent of past military action sans a declaration of war.

However, Congress can choose not to fund it. If that happens, his war will end real quick as a failure. $15 Billion isn't nearly enough to prosecute such a war successfully, not with the forces involved. Remember last time we got our allies in the Gulf to pay for it, a luxury we won't have this time.

Bush has not made a decision whether or not to attack Iraq. This is the time for interested parties to voice their opinions and give their advice.

Not quite. Bush has decided to attack Iraq, he just can't do it without making the case and getting support, something he has failed utterly to do. He would do it, if he'd been more politically savvy in engineering support. Not to mention finding an adequate casus belli.

Wishing that evil people will go away usually does not work as history has proved.

And sometimes, realistically, you just have to let evil men run their nations and die on their own (Castro, Kim Il Sung, Khomeini, etc.). Bush spent so much time excortiating Clinton for playing policeman to the world and engaging in "nation-building." Yet here he proposes to do exactly that. Utter hypocrisy, and his justification is tenuous. He's out for revenge for his daddy, we can all see that.

[Chris 62]

"we can all see that."

We?

You have a mouse in your pocket?

[SpencerH]

The gulf war cost the USA 10-20 billion total cost 61-71 b (CNN source).

If Iraq is harboring Al Queda members we have reason to attack just as we did against Afghanistan.

If some of our "allies" dont want to aid in the fight, ****-em. Sometimes acting unilaterally is the right thing to do. At the time, no one supported Israel's brilliant air raid against the Iraqi nuclear plant in the early 80's. That fast-breeder plant would have turned plenty of fissionable material that could have been converted to weapons grade. Without that attack Saddam-baby would already have the bomb.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
If some of our "allies" dont want to aid in the fight, ****-em.

Some? Try any! Only Blair, Sharon, and the dictator of Kuwait support Bush's fantasy.

Chris, if UN resolutions were all that important a reason for waging war on another country, why aren't you advocating war against Israel? They have continuously violated their agreements with the UN for the past 50 years, as well as violating UN Security resolutions (we'll ignore General Assembly resolutions).

The US is not the enforcer of the UN. Hussein's violations aren't causi belli. There is no evidence that Hussein is aiding or harboring terrotists, although there are plenty of self-serving accusations (especially considering that Islamic terrorists are trying to topple Hussein--though it is very likely he's aiding al-Qaeda allies in Kurdistan who are attacking the Kurdish government there).

Also, evertime the US says it's considering the "nuclear option," that's a threat to use WoMD. The last time we did that was in 1991. However, the government has said it wants to use tac nukes against people like Hussein, which is another form of threat.

[Chris 62]

Che, best read my posts again, highlight my opinion of the UN, clearly stated.

As I told the now banned Spinky, produce proof of this "Consideration" (mainstream, not obscure, as he tried).

[Boris Godunov]

Even Blair has backed off, since the UK is largely opposed to acting in such a manner.

And yes, I have a mouse in my pocket. Actually, it's more like one of them giant lab rats...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The gulf war cost the USA 10-20 billion total cost 61-71 b (CNN source).

Exactly... the $10-15B Bush supposedly have to fight with would evaporate far too soon to finish the war, if he insisted on overriding congressional objections (and hence financing) of the war. We have nobody to help pay for it this time.

It would trash the U.S. economy, and Bush can ill-afford to do any worse than he has been on that subject.

[GePap]

I agree totaly with Boris that this admin has already made up its mind on a mlitary strike (just listen to Cheney) but has utterly screwed up the job of getting support.

Obvioulsy, many of the posters here have bought the Saddam=Hitler crap that the US has sold since 91, and many share the neo-conservative bias that US power is all one needs to make the wolrd a better place. I will not argue with such folk, since they usually present losts of biases and no evidence. They have made up their minds and nothing will change it.

The admin has failed utterly to make convincingly the case they wish to make: Thery want to link Saddam to the current war on terror and say that his WMD are more of a danger than anyone elses. Now, Egypt and Syria also have chemical weapons (Egypt used them in Yemen in the 60's, we know about Syria), and neither is a democracy (hell, no arab regime is) but for some reason, they, including terrorist state Syria, won't be handing VMX nerve gas to Osama (everyone talks about how evil the Saudis must be since 15 of 19 hijackers were saudi. well, the guy in charge of the cells was Egytian:Oh my god! Hosni's in bed with Al-qeda!). Israel and Pakistan have nukes but thats not a danger to local stability- its not like they have tensions with neighbors who also have WMD.....
Bush has shown no connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam. Right after 9/11 the hawks spoke about how Atta met with Iraqi ntelligence in Prague. What happened to that report? You would thnk if its valid, the admin. would be using it daily, but its gone. Yes, there are reports of Al Qeada operatives in Norther, kurd controlled Iraq. Many speak of the kurds as an internal ally. i don't doubt they will help, but obviously the CIA hasn't gotten them, or itself, to find out what these guys are doing there. They blame Saddam, but he has no control of this region- our allies do.

As for the ability of the US to act unilaterally. I don't doubt that without anyone elses aid we can win the initial campaign- even without local bases. And American casualties will be low, though low means under 1000 dead, they will be much higger than the gulf war and the little excersice in Afghanistan. The proble wil be the aftre effects. Israle bombing one reactor is a one shot deal- it requires no afterthought. Who will control Iraq? The Sunni middle, the Shia majority, the Kurds. How much leway wil the Kurds get? How big will the influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Council, the biggest opposition group, be? If we go at it alone, expect a long and economically costly peration. Now, SpencerH seemed to say, hey, the Gulf war was cheap, only cost us 11 b. Well, this time we will pay the whole bit, extimated at 60-70b. Then there is the money to rebuild Iraq, not only after the war but 11 years of sactions. Thats man more bs. I bet the Iranians will do better job of getting the mony in than us- heck, Iran ahs pledged more money to Afghanistan than we have, and might be quicker to deliver also. We have not yet considered, for eample, if sadam gets to a third country- hell, Osama got away, and he didn't have the resources Saddam does to get away. What do we do then?

Al these go-ho conservative "we the US are right, ****em if they disagree (as SpencerH put it so eloquently)" usually dont have the attention span to keep things going. First of all, whishing a return to sanity and the quick end of this admin by 2005, the next admin will be saddled with the occupation of at least 2 foreing states (if any gun-ho idiots think we wll be out of afghanistan by 2005, then I have a bridge I want to sell you, it really, really nice) and all the crap afterwards. Thse guys dont seem to think that if the US moves to change the rules, other state might decide to take the advice. Heck, Georgia isn't meeting its dues against Chechen terrosirm, so Russia decides that its best for all the world that the regime be changed! India decides that regime change in pakistan is best! But heck, unilateral action is justified!

Reality check- Bush, and his supporters in this thread, share a single belief. They are right, the US is right, and US might can make it all alright. the world is monochrome: black and white, and simple. The reason we will invade Iraq (anyone silly enough to think it is not a done deal, and that this admin will railroad everyone into it, no matter the consequences, has forgotten the tax bill) is that Saddam doesn't fit the image Bush has created of the Middle East (no, not a democratic, peaceful one, Just a US dominated one safe for cheap oil and Israel [especially the likudniks])