Should we attack Iraq?

Watching Bush and his staff talk about doing the right thing is making me a bit uneasy. I can understand the problem of waiting until Iraq is capable of responding to our attack with nukes, but where's the evidence that they're even close? We had to show evidence of bin Laden's role in 9/11. Will we bother to show evidence that Hussein is close to having nuclear capabilities? It seems that the Bush administration is plowing ahead regardless of our allies positions or the possibility of the middle east becoming even more unstable. How will Israel respond to Hussein when he lobs a few missles into their country? What if those missles contain biological agents? Bush says that we just need to get Hussein out of power, but what else do we stand to gain? Cheaper oil? Nuking Iraq without having to deliver the weopon ourselves? A toe hold in the region to put intense pressure on Saudi Arabia? The fact that 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were of Saudi descent is not lost on me. Why or why not attack? Are there ulterior motives? What do you think they are?

"How will Israel respond to Hussein when he lobs a few missles into their country? What if those missles contain biological agents?"


Odds are with an extensive nuclear strike. That would create a very interesting situation to put it mildly. You are right that this is a very difficult decision and issue. I am uneasy too, and undecided on what we should do.

....failure to act will be more detrimental to the world at large and the well-being of our children than pissing off the Arab world, China, and the other knee-jerk ass-hole countries that refuse to take a stand when one is called for. Most of these countries however, do know our number when some tyrant or aggressor comes storming in. [See: France, see Saudi Arabia]. I'm not saying nuke Iraq (though I wouldn't be pissed if it happened), just kick their ass, get Hussein outta there and get someone in who will run the country in a responsible fashion that is in harmony with the rest of the world.

I pretty much agree with most of your points except for the one in the title of your post. There are lots of reasons not too. The reasons to do it, however, simply outweigh the reasons not to do it, IMO. The problem is how to do it and when.


Saddam publicly called for jihad against the USA and Israel about 2 years ago. Allowing him to further develop his weapons of mass destruction would likely prove foolhardy. What's more, Iraq has broken EVERY major point of agreement regarding the cease-fire, so technically we are still at war with Iraq and there is no need to declare war. The lame attitudes of the rest of the world are painful to watch and will be difficult to deal with.

I get very very scared when people like former U.S. Marine intelligence officer and UNSCOM chief inspector Scott Ritter say that the Senate hearings on this question were a joke and the assertions that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction are untrue. Here is an excerpt from a Seattle time article about Mr. Ritter:


"With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agents produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years. The same holds true for biological agents, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture," Ritter said. That's not to mention the fact that chemical weapons emits vented gasses that can be detected by U.S. eavesdropping. The same holds true for the manufacture of nuclear weapons, which emit detectable gamma rays. They've been watching, via satellite and other means, and have seen none of this, Ritter said.


So why would the expertise of this "card-carrying Republican in the conservative-moderate range who voted for George W. Bush for president" be left out of the Senate hearings on whether to attack Iraq?


"The hearings were a sham," Ritter said. "The national security of the United States has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically driven political ambitions. The day we send our soldiers off to die for narrow political reasons is the day we fail as an American democracy."


Any chance to stop the war? "The Bush administration is dead serious about this," Ritter said. "I'm hoping the media and the American people will wake up to this direct assault on the Constitution and on our moral standards as a nation."

a war does not violate the constitution, nor would a declaration of war without constitutional approval, since the original war in 1991 and the resolution for that war is still effective and there are still daily fly-overs by the US. This was the reason why clinton was able to take action during his term under operation desert fox.


you should take what ritter says with a grain of salt, especially since he is not a constitutional scholar. the real issue is whether the war is warranted based on a balancing of the risk that saddam has such weapons and intends to use them against our interest with the loss expected, versus the potential loss of lives in a useless war if he does not. given the opportunity cost of doing nothing and the probability that such a war will be easily won (as was the last one at least in terms of loss of life)the answer seems to be easy. considerations relating to other country's support or UN opposition etc are secondary to the central question.


Pat


Pat

I see two significant risks in attacking Iraq:


1. Provoking the use of the weapons of mass destruction that we are so worried about, possibly with retaliation with nuclear strikes from Israel if Sadam attacks Isreal.


2. What happens in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world after we overthrow Saddam. I am very concerned that we may end up trying to maintain an occupying force against terrorist and guerilla opposition. This could easily put us in an untenable position. Our troops will continue to be killed by bombs, snipers, mortars, rockets, etc. and, if we finally get sick of it and leave, a fundamentalist, fanatical islamic regime may take over. Bad as Saddam Hussein is, he is predictable. He can be counted on to act in his own best interests. An Islamic regime may well be willing to destroy themselves to damage us: the Suicide bomber mentality on a large scale.


I do not believe that Saddam will use his nuclear, chemical or bio-weapons if he knows that he will face massive retaliation in kind--unless he believes that he has nothing left to lose. Attacking Iraq may well initiate the disaster we hope to avoid. I believe that containment and deterrence are viable alternatives to invading.

As Pat points out, Iraq has insisted on flagrantly violating the terms of the cease-fire agreement. Therefore we would not be waging a new war, but merely continuing the war from 1991. That's what cease-fire aggreement means--a cease-fire under provided for terms and conditions.


If we have to invade Iraq over this it will be 100% Saddam's fault.

"you should take what ritter says with a grain of salt, especially since he is not a constitutional scholar."


now mabe ritter am not a constratushamal scollar, but i sure is, and i say it "am not" controtusonaly leagal to strike Sadammie.

I know you are sincere in this, Chris, but I also recall that when this was discussed before you seemed to think that the answer was along the lines of simply negotiating more agreements with Iraq with verification. The problem is that Saddanm has clearly shown such agreements are worthless to him except as maneuvering tools. He doesn't keep the agreements he has already made, so why should we think he will honor any new agreements.


Maybe one of the mistakes we made was this: when Iraq was violating the cease-fire terms, we thought sanctions might bring him around. What a sad joke. Sanctions did nothing to bring him around. Maybe we should have instead been more stark about it: given him ONE warning--told him that we had spared him and Baghdad, but that we would go back and finish the job if he didn't honor the cease-fire agreement 100%, no ifs ands or buts and this would be his final warning.


When negotiating with dictators and tyrants one must never lose sight of the fact that ultimately they respect only one thing: force.

M wrote:


I know you are sincere in this, Chris, but I also recall that when this was discussed before you seemed to think that the answer was along the lines of simply negotiating more agreements with Iraq with verification. The problem is that Saddanm has clearly shown such agreements are worthless to him except as maneuvering tools. He doesn't keep the agreements he has already made, so why should we think he will honor any new agreements.

**********


Are you sure you believe that, or were you just trying to get the word, "agreements" to line up 4 times like that? /images/smile.gif

The arguments about the United States Constitution or International Law are, unfortunately, laughable. The Constitution is getting eroded and Int'l Law is not the worth the price of a chair in the Security Council. Still, there must be one or two people who'd be interested in getting as much background in the unfolding story as they can. Poker players maybe.

I'm not too worried about international law. If an action is proper, it will be so regardless of whether or not it's "legal". What bothers me is this administration's plowing headlong into a war without showing us the evidence that justifies an attack. The thought of firing off cruise missiles at $600,000 a pop while our state's teachers fight for a livable wage is really offensive. But I digress...

Well I'll bet if you research it a bit on Google you'll find plenty of convincing stuff that shows he has simply never abandoned his WMD programs. Besides it is ludicrous to take the position of demanding proof when much evidence exists, and Saddam's history has been one of consistently working towards WMD and trying to thwart inspections at every turn.


The only reason the US government should present a case to the world is so that some of the ostriches, morons, and those with special interests might wake up, and we might gain a bit more international and domestic support.

'merely continuing the war from 1991'


id like to see where congress declared war.

Ok good point I guess but still irrelevant...the cease-fire agreement is what matters here.

Those who profit from war making are perhaps the biggest special interest in this country.


KJS

It may not be irrelevant if you are trying to argue that operation Desert Storm was unconsitutional. I don't know about that one way or the other, but I think it is somewhat a moot point at this juncture, especially given that Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement.

Maybe...I don't know...but I'd rather have them profit than have Saddam able to nuke us a few years from now.

Wait until we get nuked before we take proactive steps to prevent the next nuking. Well, maybe in your world...

"Not until we get nuked"


Puh-leeeze. Just how is he going to nuke us from there?


And no matter what we do, it's not going to stop people determined enough from making a small dirty nuke and somehow transporting it here.


In fact, invading probabaly makes that more likely, not less. Unilaterally invading a sovereign nation with no global support is going to create far more threats to this nation than it purports to stop.

Clarkmeister: "Puh-leeeze. Just how is he going to nuke us from there?"


He should easily be able to buy the necessary missile technology from China or North Korea. He will inevitably gain ICBM capabilities, and it could be much sooner than later. Even before he does that, with nukes Iraq will be able to effectively hold the entire oil region hostage to his demands, not to mention threatening Israel and probably parts of Europe.


Also, small "dirty bombs" are FAR LESS dangerous and damaging than true thermonuclear devices, so your argument on that point is not all that applicable.


Within the last couple years or so, Saddam publicly called for jihad against the USA and Israel in a full page newspaper ad, on, I believe, Christmas Day.


It would be foolish to allow such a ruthless dictator and sworn enemy to continue development of WMD.


Unilaterally invading Iraq may create some ill-will, but it will also eliminate a great menace which is growing month by month. Time is not on our side. Allowing our worst enemies to arm themselves with history's worst weapons would be the height of folly, especially because Iraq and the other Middle Eastern regimes are inherently less stable, and probably less rational, than was the former USSR.

...for the titles of the posts above.


It seems to me unreasonable to assume that because Saddam doesn't have ICBM's now that he won't have them sometime in the fairly near future. His missile program is already more advanced than it was in 1991--he's come a long way from just being able to lob a few Scuds, and could possibly even threaten parts of Europe. China and North Korea are his main sources for highly advanced military technology. Given his history, and his call for jihad against the US and Israel, I really think we would be foolish to allow him such weapons.


If you're dealing with reasonable and non-agressive parties then taking an attitude of "not except in retaliation" seems quite natural and reasonable to me, generally speaking. Saddam however has shown that he's anything but non-aggressive.


Anyway, sorry for the mildly insulting post titles. The post titles were more an indication of how strongly I feel that it would be foolish to allow him to continue to develop his WMD programs, rather than attempt to insult your intelligence.

No apology needed. I wasn't at all offended by the post title. I appreciate the kind thoughts, but they aren't at all necessary. Its a bulletin board discussion. Such comments are not only common, but accepted.


I just think that invading a sovereign nation because he "might" be "near" to developing basic nuclear capability and subsequently "may" be able to purchase ICBM capabilities is simply wrong. I mean, assuming all of the above is true, he could still easily be on a 10-15 year timeframe. By then I'm sure he will have given legitimate reason to get deposed, if indeed his ultimate goal is do develop and use such weapons.


Anyways, thanks for the kind thoughts, though they realy aren't needed. I didn't reply simply because I don't like going in circles with arguements and it was apparent to me that was what we were about to do. Nothing wrong with two people stating their differing viewpoints for public consumption and letting it go at that. /images/smile.gif