Bush is full of crap

[John Ho]

I just saw his remarks today and his ongoing attempts to link Iraq to "Al Quaeda type organizations." He also warned Saddam and his generals to not kill civilians or destroy infrastructure. Of course if we invade lots of civilians will be killed and lots of roads destroyed, intentionally or not.

I've decided I don't trust the President's judgement or truthfulness nor his senior advisors' and will not support any invasion unless the UN approves. The civilian cost in Iraq will be too high for our country to go at it alone. We will not only kill thousands of innocent people but make new enemies all around the world. We already see the effect this has on our relations with Europe let alone less friendly regions.

The world is better off if Saddam is out of power but the cost of an invasion without broad international support is way too high. Now if the UN agrees - bombs away.

If the UN does not sanction a war then Bush needs to be voted out next election. He is not a great domestic leader and with his baggage our international leadership is even worse.

[marbles]

"The world is better off if Saddam is out of power but the cost of an invasion without broad international support is way too high. Now if the UN agrees - bombs away."

--I'm amazed at how popular this argument is. So you're saying that it's fabulous for us to attack Iraq, provided France says it's okay?? It's ridiculous!

If we have just cause to attack, we should attack. If not, we should not. Conveniently, the UN will likely support us if we have overwhelming evidence (which we won't likely ever have), but they should not be a deciding factor on this by any means.

It would be nice to have the support of the UN, but how could their support (or lack thereof) have anything to do with how correct our actions are?

[adios]

Polls have shown that the position John espoused is the most popular position in the USA though. IMO Bush hasn't done a very good job of handling this situation from a public relations point of view. I understand your points though.

"the UN will likely support us if we have overwhelming evidence (which we won't likely ever have)"

My suspicion is that we actually have quite a bit of evidence. I'm sure much of it's classified (flame away guys) and I'm also fairly certain that members of congress are privy to it.

Saw Lieberman today was calling for a multilateral effort in post Saddam Iraq. This seems to be a good idea to me.

The new UN resolution proposed by Bush is turning out to be at least politically embarassing for Bush and possibly politically disastorous. Gotta go.

[IrishHand]

You don't think it matters that the vast majority of people on earth are opposed to current US policy?

I find it very interesting how appaled many Americans are by democracy.

[IrishHand]

My suspicion is that we actually have quite a bit of evidence.

This is one of my favorite arguments. I have no doubt that our intelligence services know a lot more about many things than they're interested in sharing with the public - and that's as it should be. Protecting sources of information is crucial, and oftentimes revealing that information will reveal its source and therefore compromise it. However, in a matter like this - if indeed we posses "quite a bit of evidece" - it would seem the height of prudence to discretely suggest to the inspectors that...umm...maybe you fine fellows might like to look in this location. Or maybe a day trip to this site might be a good idea. Far as I can tell, that would be the perfect way for US intelligence about supposed WMD to turn into a "smoking gun" which might affect US, UN and world opinion.

The whole "we know all this, but aren't going to tell anyone even though that would solve most of our PR problems", followed by the post-invasion "look at all this nasty stuff we 'found'" doesn't fly with me.

[Glenn]

"You don't think it matters that the vast majority of people on earth are opposed to current US policy?"

No. Not at all. The majority of people in the world are too uneducated and uninformed to make a decision in the matter.

[Glenn]

What about the charge that the Iraqis are spying on the inspectors? Colin's UN presentation wasn't great, but I thought he did at least give strong evidence that this was occuring.

[marbles]

"You don't think it matters that the vast majority of people on earth are opposed to current US policy?"

--Of course it matters, but that's not the argument. The argument is, if the UN approves of an attack, then it's okay. I just think that's nuts. Attacking is either correct or not. Whether or not the UN approves is little more than a sidenote.

example: In '91, we did exactly what the UN approved by getting Saddam out of Kuwait. Now, most liberals and conservatives alike agree that we should have "finished the job" by going after Saddam while we had him on his heels.

Because we did exactly what was "approved" by the UN at the time, we're in the situation we're in now. We would very likely be better off now if we had either done nothing or wiped him out. The approved course of action was basically the worst of the three. My point is, UN approval does not make an action correct or incorrect. But the polls show that millions of Americans believe that it does. Ludicrous.

[marbles]

"Far as I can tell, that would be the perfect way for US intelligence about supposed WMD to turn into a "smoking gun" which might affect US, UN and world opinion."

--I agree with you here, Irish. I believe that we have more than enough circumstantial evidence to conclude he's hiding something, but it's the hard evidence that's so hard to come by. The guy's slick, but then, he didn't go to Evil Medical School for nothing!

[IrishHand]

The majority of people in the world are too uneducated and uninformed to make a decision in the matter.

(a) So are the majority of Americans - and that doesn't stop them from either voting or serving in office.
(b) Most polls tend to be taken from the educated portions of each nation, since that's the portion capable of doing things like reading and using computers. (eg. Magazine polls tend to be polls of their readers, not polls of the poor illeterate stooge who cleans latrines for a living.)