Invading Iraq

[pilot]

Ken:

I agree with most of what you wrote. There are a lot of other threats out there that are every bit as scary (if not more dangerous) than Sadaam Hussein. I'm not sure what this obsession is with Iraq. And even if we do "win" (no doubt at a heavy price), there's this little question of "post-hostilities ops". How long are we going to occupy their country? What about all the other countries that could potentially have nukes or harbor terrorists? Are we going to go in and occupy them also? For how long?

I think Sadaam is a real jerk, but I'm not convinced that he's "irrational". I'm not convinced that deterrence wouldn't work. After all, it worked with the Russians. Was Stalin really any better or more rational than Sadaam? What about the Pakistanis, North Koreans, or Saudis? Are they really any better or less of a threat?

Like you I believe in military force when it's called for. But I'm not so sure that it's a wise idea here. The only way to "win" a conflict in the long run is to win the hearts and minds of the people, and it seems to me that invading Iraq when the whole rest of the world (and many Americans, including military personnel and Republicans) think it's a poor idea just doesn't make any sense. As the Israelis can surely tell you, all the military force in the world won't stop terrorism.

[Warron]

I pretty much completely agree with you for once Ken.

It bothers me considerably to think that the US might be the initiator of open warfare against another country. Some might claim, that by harboring terrorist, Iraq is the initiator. But as far as I know, no real evidence of terrorists in Iraq has been put forward. With out direct and substantial evidence of a threat, what moral high ground do we have to stand on when we fire the first shot. Even though I may be nothing more then a mere peasant in the overall hierarchy of the US, I expect them to prove their case to me before I will give my support. Such proof has been far from forthcoming in many issues of late, including this one.

I can't understand how anyone with a shred of intelligence could think that GWB's motivations against Iraq are based on some personal animosity because of his father's fight with them. It's just amazing.

Yes, there is a big difference between Saddam Hussein and the other despot leaders of the world. Primarily, the difference is that these guys have never met a weapons system they didn't like. Hussein has never met a weapons system that he hasn't used. Just about every country in the world has a biological and chemical weapons capability, and Pakistan, India, North Korea, and others have the ability to launch these weapons on short and intermediate range missiles. But only Iraq has shown a willingness to actually use them. Even when Israel was teetering on the brink of defeat in the 1960s they didn't use the weapons of mass destruction that they had. Hussein used his weapons just to kill Iraqi dissidents who disagreed with him. He was also willing to risk the lives of thousands of Israelis who had done nothing to him or his country just to help break up the coaliltion against him. What other world leader has done something so hideous?

How many people have looked back at the 1930's and said "If only people had know what Hitler had in store for the world, and someone could have taken him out." Now we have to suffer fools who don't want to learn from history and say that we should wait until this nutjob gets even more powerful weapons and wait until he uses them against someone before we should take action.

If anyone, anyone, can look at Hussein's record and think that he's no different from Kim Jung-Il, Abdul Kalam, or Pervez Musharraf, you're wearing some serious rose colored glasses. Yes, these leaders may rattle swords from time to time, just like the US and Soviet Union did, but they have shown no signs of a willingness to take the next step. Their weapons are more propoganda items than actual weapons. Hussein is different. He has repeatedly shown a willingness to use any weapon at his disposal to achieve his goals, the others haven't.

And what are Hussein's stated goals: His primary goal is to consolidate all of the Arab states into one country, with him as it's political and spiritual leader. He sees this as a devine destiny. I think we've learned from recent events that people motivated by devine beliefs are capable of any attrocity, however heinous, if they believe it's God's will. Issues with the other trouble spots of the world deal with political and economic interests, and leaders motivated by these aren't very prone to see their actions as devine in nature.

Yes we have smacked Hussein when he's gotten out of line, but that's not slowed down his desire to get WMDs. He's like a dog that you can hit and hit, but eventually he's going to bite you back when he feels that the moment is his.

I guess what really smokes my nads the most is that you people who would drag their feet and say we have no business launching a pre-emptive attack would be the very first in line to call for the President's head if we were ever attacked in the future.

[Ken King (Premo)]

I can't understand how anyone with a shred of intelligence could think that GWB's motivations against Iraq are based on some personal animosity because of his father's fight with them. It's just amazing.

What I find amazing is where is the proof that they are talking about? Have you seen it? I haven’t, so that is where my little shred of intelligence says that it might be something else.

Yes, there is a big difference between Saddam Hussein and the other despot leaders of the world. Primarily, the difference is that these guys have never met a weapons system they didn't like. Hussein has never met a weapons system that he hasn't used. Just about every country in the world has a biological and chemical weapons capability, and Pakistan, India, North Korea, and others have the ability to launch these weapons on short and intermediate range missiles.

Name one world leader that would turn down a weapons system if they thought they could get a hold of it.

But only Iraq has shown a willingness to actually use them.

We are still the only nation to have used nukes, so I guess we are no better then Saddam. Many others have dabbled in the chemical arena, including us.

How many people have looked back at the 1930's and said "If only people had know what Hitler had in store for the world, and someone could have taken him out." Now we have to suffer fools who don't want to learn from history and say that we should wait until this nutjob gets even more powerful weapons and wait until he uses them against someone before we should take action.

Waiting until they have been used has always been our way, now all of a sudden we want to swat first and then see if they really had the ability. Furthermore, as he assuredly doesn’t have weapons that will reach our soil (by traditional delivery methods), where is the threat?

If anyone, anyone, can look at Hussein's record and think that he's no different from Kim Jung-Il, Abdul Kalam, or Pervez Musharraf, you're wearing some serious rose colored glasses. Yes, these leaders may rattle swords from time to time, just like the US and Soviet Union did, but they have shown no signs of a willingness to take the next step. Their weapons are more propoganda items than actual weapons. Hussein is different. He has repeatedly shown a willingness to use any weapon at his disposal to achieve his goals, the others haven't.

Really, the India and Pakistan issue recently was nothing to worry about? And you want to talk about others in rose colored glasses. Maybe we don’t have our heads as deep in the sand as you do.

And what are Hussein's stated goals: His primary goal is to consolidate all of the Arab states into one country, with him as it's political and spiritual leader. He sees this as a devine destiny. I think we've learned from recent events that people motivated by devine beliefs are capable of any attrocity, however heinous, if they believe it's God's will. Issues with the other trouble spots of the world deal with political and economic interests, and leaders motivated by these aren't very prone to see their actions as devine in nature.

That may be his goal, but until recently he hadn’t had anyone listening to him. Now with all the rhetoric it seems he is developing a coalition based upon our saber rattling.

I guess what really smokes my nads the most is that you people who would drag their feet and say we have no business launching a pre-emptive attack would be the very first in line to call for the President's head if we were ever attacked in the future.

Well, while you have your “nads” in your mouth (isn’t that how you smoke them?) I doubt any of us are shallow enough to blame one single person for the acts of others. If attacked and the President (regardless of who is in the office) responds appropriately I doubt if you would hear anyone #####ing.

I wonder why so many are ready to send our troops off to a war that, as of this time, only a handful see the need for.

[Christy]

I think our biggest failure in regards to Iraq is abandoning those we had promised our support in an "uprising". We did the same in Afghanistan.

Everyone will probably think I'm a kook, but the reason I believe we did this to both countries is because both conflicts became so "public", and we've not had leadership in years who will stand up to media "spin".

Due to the American public feeling they have the right to know everything, has cost many many American lives.

[vraiblonde]

Ken, I'm waiting for Maynard to come on agreeing with you - then we'd have a trifecta

Right now everyone's so "sensitive" that I'm gonna run down some facts just so I can pick a fight with you - gotta get it out of my system.

[Warron]

Originally posted by Christy

Due to the American public feeling they have the right to know everything, has cost many many American lives.

The American public does have the right to know everything. And its not this right that has cost lives, it’s the unwillingness to let the people know which has. It seems that many of our leaders will do all they can to prevent from having to defend their decisions to the public. It wasn’t the media coverage that resulted in a loss of our support to these countries, but that the minute justification for our support was required to be put forward, no one wanted to be involved anymore. If someone had had enough backbone to stand up and show why we needed to provide this support and stand up to any criticism that was put forward, things might have been different. The US isn’t a dictatorship or a monarchy. Our leaders need to get the support of the people for their actions, and expecting blind faith from them is not the same thing.

[Tonio]

Excellent column, Ken.

A few years ago, Robert McNamara said that the Kennedy-era generals were advising against large-scale involvement in Vietnam. He and others in the Administration were the gung-ho ones, in spirit if not in resources. That runs counter to a lot of the assumptions about the war. A lot of people believed that the generals were the hawks and the politicians were the doves.

[vraiblonde]

Curious, Ken, what you think of the "alleged" evidence that Saddam was involved in the 9-11 attacks?
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archi...296646,00.html

And Warron, if the American public (not to mention our elected officials) could keep their mouths shut and not spew classified information to the whole world, maybe they would be entitled to know everything that's going on. As it stands, I'm not willing to put my safety on the line because some big mouth feels he is "entitled" to know military information.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Going after the terrorist connection vice the threat from WMD. We can play that too. Okay I’ll give you that al-Ani is a bad man. You definitely got me there. We know what he has done, but in this instance, what did he do? He met with Atta.

Yeah, but about what? A known spy is meeting with, at the time of the meeting, an unknown terrorists. What did they discuss or do? Was it a transfer of money, getting instructions, or getting documents for the bad guys, who knows? Did al-Ani make a deal for himself or for his country? Again, who knows?

We have sufficient known terrorists to deal with like al Qaeda, Yemen (Remember the Cole), Saudi Arabia (15 of 19 Hijackers plus the bin Laden family) and others that we could be going after but aren't with the exception of al Qaeda. Why?

You know me, and how I am, make the case if you can as this is a very big issue. The biggest when you consider we are talking about the lives of our troops. If it can’t be made then we shouldn’t commit their lives.