President Bush intends to make his case for the invasion of Iraq at the United Nations a day after the anniversary of September 11.
I have a very good feeling about this.
I have the feeling that President Bush is going to engage in a battle of wills with the Eurocrats, and my money is on Bush.
It looks as though President Bush is going to do what he did after September 11. He’s going to make the case publically for everyone to hear, and he’s going to ask for an action. Just as we knew that the Taliban would never turn over bin Laden, Bush knows that Iraq will never allow any effective weapons inspection without attaching a string of unreasonable demands to them.
Moreover, Bush is going to put pressure not only Saddam, but also on the Europeans. He’s going to go in and state his case as the Europeans wanted. As with Saddam, he more than likely expects everyone except the British to say no. He’s also going to remind the rest of Europe that if they don’t want to play along, we’ll go it alone. (Or more likely we’ll go in with the British in a supporting role.)
The brilliance of all this is that it cuts through all the smoke and confusion of the past few months. What we need now is a straight and clear case for what we must do in Iraq. It needs to have the kind of clarity and strength of will that we had one year ago. If Bush pulls this off right, expect support for action against Iraq to jump overnight, and possibly take Bush’s poll numbers up with them.
This post made headline news.
http://www.usdailyreport.com
And why is engaging in yet another pointless war a good thing? Is killing innocent people (the citizens that worship Saddam Hussein don’t *know* any better) just to gain access to oil your idea of a worthy cause?
Repeat after me: it has nothing to do with oil…
What this is about is preventing a dictatorial regime led by one of the world’s biggest nutcases from getting its hand on a nuclear weapon, something it will do within a very short time unless we act. It’s also about freeing the Iraqi people from the clutches of Hussein, who has no compunction about killing them en masse if it serves his goals. It’s also about ensuring that terrorists like the members of al-Qaeda who are now in northern Iraq have one less place to go. It’s also about ensuring that the Iraqi people no longer need to be starved to death while Saddam Hussein takes food aid and converts it into hard currency for his military machine.
All of those reasons and more clearly show that war with Iraq, while not without its own set of problems, is immeasurably better than the alternatives.
The dictorial regime with nuclear weapons is the Bush regime. There is no credible evidence that Iraq has any weapons ( nuclear, chemical, or biological) whatsoever. This is just a load of Bushcrap to divert attention from Bush failures for the November elections. No doubt, all you wackjobs will be leading the charge into Baghdad.
It is both about oil and about delaying the next nuclear war by a few decades.
Iranian kids are begging the US to liberate Iraq, and liberate Iran while they are at it!
Mike: Yup, there’s absolutely no evidence for Iraq’s nuclear program except for their purchase of weapons components, the designer of the weapon they’re developing who defected to the West, the head of the German Federal Intelligence Service, Saddam Hussein’s call for "nuclear mujihadeen", a mountain of paperwork, and a little common sense.
But I won’t let something as stubborn as facts get in the way of your paranoid rantings…
Right. He’s obviously attempting too, but it’s highly unlikely that he will suceed, and even if he does they’re worthless to him anyway, except perhaps he may try to use them as bargaining chips to enhance his power, which will fail anyway as he would never use them.
We keep forgetting, Saddam is not a Hitler, but a Stalin. More than anti-semitism, his Islamic pandering, or his desire for vengeance, he is motivated by survival and power. He may be totally evil, but he’s not insane. He launches one nuke and whether it his or not Iraq will be wiped off the face of the Earth and his life will be quite rapidly cut short.
Now if you insist on defeating Iraq soley with military force, how are you going to keep it from breaking into a multi-sided civil war. That’ll throw all the boundries decided post WWI into question, and may also incite new waves of fundamentalism all over the middle east.
Now if you can solve all those programs, I’m all for military action. 😛
The worry isn’t really that Saddam will use the nuke himself (as a weapon, that is), but that he’ll use it as a bargaining chip to lord over the smaller, defenseless nations of the Middle East, or that he’ll secretly supply a terrorist group with the weapon and use it as a bargaining chip against the US. Nuclear weapons are never (with two very notable exceptions) used as ordnance- they’re used as political chess pieces. In that respect, a nuclear weapon has more in common with a Senator than a Stinger Missile.
If we do go through with an invasion of Iraq, we’ll have to be in it for the long haul. Aside from Israel and Turkey, we have no allies we can count on in the region, so we’ll probably have to keep the country occupied with peacekeepers for at least two years (if not longer) while we attempt to build a stable government and get the nation’s economy restabilized. We’re going to have to find some Ritalin for our political ADD, or we’ll have chaos on our hands.