Things Bush apparently doesn't need to attack Iraq

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

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

Thats why "allies" is in quotes. The only consistent ally of the USA is GB.

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.

The US never restricts itself by saying it wont use nuclear weapons (quite rightly).

Heres a wonderful piece from a news blurb entitled World Leaders Urge U.S. Restraint

In China, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri met with Vice Premier Qian Qichen on Wednesday in an effort to drum up support for Baghdad from a traditional ally. Qian reportedly said he opposed U.S. military action against Iraq.

In the meeting, Qian repeated China's demand that Iraq implement U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for the return of U.N. arms inspectors, the official Xinhua News Agency reported.

Xinhua also quoted Qian as saying that "China does not agree with the practice of using force or threatening to use force to resolve this issue."

[Boris Godunov]

So if China is against it, it must be the right course of action! Riiiiiiiiiight... Isn't the era of cold war knee-jerk antagonism supposed to be over?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


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.

What you're saying would be true if the US was planning another desert storm, but there's no way that this could be an operation on the same scope as that war.

As for the economy, Just as Clinton was not responsible for the upswing, Bush is not responsible for the downside (although he might pay the price for it).

[Lincoln]

In other words, this is another hate Bush thread. Do people have a life other than second guessing George Bush? If some of you lberals were in charge we would have given Hitler Europe so that we could all live in peace and safety. Are you the same people who said we should not go into Afganastan because it would be another Vietnam? Back seat, Monday morning quarterbacks ought to fight a few wars themselves before they give out so much advice...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


So if China is against it, it must be the right course of action! Riiiiiiiiiight... Isn't the era of cold war knee-jerk antagonism supposed to be over?

Personally, I've never been a "knee-jerk" reactionary to anything. You missed the point,

"China does not agree with the practice of using force or threatening to use force to resolve this issue."

Since when? I guess we'll see the end of the military buildup around Taiwan then eh!

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Lincoln
In other words, this is another hate Bush thread. Do people have a life other than second guessing George Bush? If some of you lberals were in charge we would have given Hitler Europe so that we could all live in peace and safety. Are you the same people who said we should not go into Afganastan because it would be another Vietnam? Back seat, Monday morning quarterbacks ought to fight a few wars themselves before they give out so much advice...

You know Lincoln, it's ironic that Boris opposes war vs a despot like Saddam, he would be a victim of him, and the Nazis as well, based on his personal preferences.

It's amazing who a Leftist will ally with to support an anti-Bush campaign.

[Lincoln]

"It wasn't until each country [in Europe] got attacked that they said: 'Maybe Winston Churchill was right. Maybe that lone voice expressing concern about what was happening was right',"

Rumsfeld

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by 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])

What a wonderfull diatribe. Written with real gusto. Heres a small piece of advice, keep your bad interpretations of my comments to yourself. You dont know me. You dont know anything about me except that I quoted the cost of Desert Storm and I dont agree that every action in the world should be by consensus.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Chris 62
You know Lincoln, it's ironic that Boris opposes war vs a despot like Saddam, he would be a victim of him, and the Nazis as well, based on his personal preferences.

It's amazing who a Leftist will ally with to support an anti-Bush campaign.

I guess people forget that Bush is doing exactly the same thing that Clinton did when he threatened to invade Haiti. The war was not necessary. The threat worked as planned. Of course people hate George Bush so much that they cannot conceive that he may actually have a plan that will work -- like it did in Afganastan.

Today the BBC is reporting that Iraq is now becoming more serious about negotiating. People like Sadam do not give in easily. Of course we could just continue to beg him to be good...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
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 doesn't matter how much money the Adminstration has. The moment Congress says, you may not spend any money on this, it grinds to a halt, immediately. Any money that the US gets from other countries is the property of the US, it goes into the treasury. Only Congress has the power to appropriate funds. Absolute control of the purse strings is the most important power Congress has against the Presidency.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I guess people forget that Bush is doing exactly the same thing that Clinton did when he threatened to invade Haiti. The war was not necessary. The threat worked as planned. Of course people hate George Bush so much that they cannot conceive that he may actually have a plan that will work -- like it did in Afganastan.

It's bad form to mention US sucess stories, only failures can be recognized here.

Today the BBC is reporting that Iraq is now becoming more serious about negotiating. People like Sadam do not give in easily. Of course we could just continue to beg him to be good...

Genuine threats do seem to be far more effective then sitting on your hands and hopping things will improve, don't they?

It's my opinion that it's to late for Saddam, he has played this game to many times in the past.

[DanS]

che: Recissions are difficult to push through outside the normal budgetary process and would require an affirmative vote against military action.

There's a lot of daylight between congressional approval of the action and congressional disapproval of the action.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
You know Lincoln, it's ironic that Boris opposes war vs a despot like Saddam, he would be a victim of him, and the Nazis as well, based on his personal preferences.

It's amazing who a Leftist will ally with to support an anti-Bush campaign.

You know, Chris, it's sad people actually use such dumb canards as this in an argument.

Disagreeing with Bush's tactics in dealing with Saddam is not the same thing as supporting or "allying" with Saddam. I've expressed nothing but contempt for Saddam, but that doesn't mean I will support abject stupidity for dealing with him.

I know in the conservative world things are always black-and-white, but let's be more realistic...

[Kaak]

bah...the UN and the rest of our "allies" are freaking pansy asses. The UN sets mandates, insists on inspectors, etc, to have Iraq tell them to go to hell. Then they get pissed when someone wants to do something about it. And they expect the world to listen when they say something?

Someone has to do what needs to be done. Might as well be us.

[Kaak]

besides...don't you think if Bush was so determined to attack, he would have done so already? You think he would publicise it for the world to see? It's a scare tactic, that can and will be backed up.