The only ones saying that anything needs to be done about taking out Saddam are the US and our poodle. We because we have some detracting to do from our national problems and because Bush feels peeved off by Saddam, our poodle because poodles like pleasing. ( To any Brits out there, I am just referring to Tony, not to any of his fellow citizens). An insight fortunately not shared by the rest of the international community less susceptible to brainwashing by Junior. The rest of the world says to do what we've always done with rogue states, contain them. That's all. I wonder how many would feel perfectly willing to pay several Billion Dollars per Month for an exercise seen by the rest of the world as a nutty and pointless adventure, particularly in the face of huge domestic problems, also in the face of the fact that we are currently supporting another dictator, our favorite of the year, Musharaf of Pakistan, who has ABC weapons, is involved in dirty tricks in Kashmir, and whose country is a pretty effective breeding ground for terrorism. Do we care? Nope, not at all. That is just not what this about, fighting terrorism or being against dictators supporting extremely dirty tricks and killings of civilians. Not to mention the long list of other rogue states no one is clamoring about. Then again, they never personally humiliated the Bush family, did they. Money for war, it should be remembered, that we will have to come up with alone as no other state is dumb enough to fall for Juniors lil adventure. But that, unfortunately we do not have. Mr. Bush, stop the insanity AUSTIN, Texas -- No. This is not acceptable. This is not the country we want to be. This is not the world we want to make. The United States of America is still run by its citizens. The government works for us. Rank imperialism and warmongering are not American traditions or values. We do not need to dominate the world. We want and need to work with other nations. We want to find solutions other than killing people. Not in our name, not with our money, not with our children's blood. I rarely use the word "we" because it's so arrogant for one citizen to presume to speak for all of us. But on this one, I know we want to find a way so that killing is the last resort, not the first. We would rather put our time, energy, money and even blood into making peace than making war. "The National Security Strategy of the United States -- 2002" is repellent, unnecessary and, above all, impractical. Americans are famous for pragmatism, and we need a good dose of common sense right now. This Will Not Work. All of the experts tell us anti-Americanism thrives on the perception that we are arrogant, that we care nothing for what the rest of the world thinks. Even our innocent mistakes are often blamed on obnoxious triumphalism. The announced plan of this administration for world domination reinforces every paranoid, anti-American prejudice on this Earth. This plan is guaranteed to produce more terrorists. Even if this country were to become some insane, 21st-century version of Sparta -- armed to the teeth, guards on every foot of our borders -- we still wouldn't be safe. Not only would we not be safe, we would not have a nickel left for schools or health care or roads or parks or zoos or gardens or universities or mass transit or senior centers or the arts or anything resembling civilization. This is nuts. This creepy, un-American document has a pedigree going back to Bush I, when -- surprise! -- Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz were at the Department of Defense. In those days, it was called "Defense Strategy for the 1990s" and was supposed to be a definitive response to the Soviet threat. Then the Soviet threat disappeared, and the same plan re-emerged as a response to the post-Soviet world. It was roundly criticized at the time, its manifest weaknesses attacked by both right and left. Now it is back yet again as the answer to post-Sept. 11. Sort of like the selling of the Bush tax cut -- needed in surplus, needed in deficit, needed for rain and shine -- the plan exists apart from rationale. As Frances FitzGerald points out in today's New York Review of Books, its most curious feature is the combination of triumphalism and almost unmitigated pessimism. Until last Friday, when the thing was re-released in its new incarnation, it contained no positive goals for American foreign policy, not one. Now the plan is tricked out with rhetoric like earrings on a pig about extending freedom, democracy and prosperity to the world. But as The New York Times said, "It sounds more like a pronouncement that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might have produced." In what is indeed a dangerous and uncertain world, we need the cooperation of other nations as never before. Under this doctrine, we claim the right to first-strike use of nuclear weapons and "unannounced pre-emptive strikes." That means surprise attacks. Happy Pearl Harbor Day. We have just proclaimed ourselves Bully of the World. This reckless, hateful and ineffective approach to the rest of the world has glaring weaknesses. It announces that we intend to go in and take out everybody else's nukes whenever we feel like it. Meanwhile, we're doing virtually nothing to stop their spread. Last month, Ted Turner's Nuclear Threat Initiative had to pony up $5 million to get poorly secured, weapons-grade uranium out of Belgrade. Privatizing disarmament, why didn't we think of that before? The final absurdity is that the plan is supposed to Stop Change. Does no one in the administration read history? Molly Ivins is a syndicated columnist. Columnist Thomas L. Friedman is on vacation. Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun
You're totally on the opposite side of even the most bleeding of liberal opinion. Wonder no more; quotes from the latest poll, 3 days ago: 61 percent of Americans support attacking Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. 77 percent, if Baghdad admits but then interferes with U.N. weapons inspectors. And Americans overwhelmingly (79 percent) believe that Iraq in fact does not intend to cooperate with those inspectors. Indeed, antipathy toward Saddam is so broad that two-thirds say the United States should continue to try to oust him even if he does cooperate fully with U.N. inspectors. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/Iraqpoll020927.html You and your bleeding heart pals are in the extreme minority.
You are either misinformed or peddling misinformation knowingly. Both of which I would suggest you should correct. Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Spain, Italy and Canada are among the many other countries who agree with the US and Britain that Saddam must be removed from power. The difference between their opinions is how to remove Saddam and whether they support unilateral action or UN backed action. The containment policy that you propose has glaring and obvious inadequecies. First among them is that the sanctions imposed on Iraq were meant to be temporary because the rest of the world (UN) assumed that they were dealing with a human being and not a monster who would break the backs of his own people and do anything and everything to stay in power. To continue this would mean millions of Iraqis will die and suffer. This was never intended by the UN. On the other hand if you propose removal of the UN sanctions, then you are defeating your own proposed plan of containment. The second problem with containment is that Saddam is doing everything in his power to get out of the cage. Just recently a shipment of aluminium containers were intercepted. They are used to enrich uranium to weapons grade. A small shipment of weapons grade uranium was intercepted in Turkey -- no one knows if Baghdad was the final destination. Also the Ukrain sold Iraq radar equipment with which it tries incessantly to shoot down airplanes that are enforcing the no fly zones. They shouldn't sell them military technology.And finally I'll mention the elephant in the closet everyone ignores, the fact that Iraq illegally sells oil on the black market (via Jordan, other neighbouring countries). Technically they should not be able to do this -- but rather only sell their oil as per the UN oil for food program. Therefore it is obvious that containment simply does not work. So you see, a reasonable person would understand that containing a savage dictator like Saddam is simply not an option because the risk that he may get out of the cage is too high in the long run and the damage that he could weak is much too great if he does. If you have a coherent and viable option that would avoid war, I would love to hear it. As of yet I have not heard of such an option. All I have heard of is the continuous conspiracy theories, criticism and whining about war. Rather than complain about the proposed action by the US and Britain, step forward and give us a better idea. I even created a thread in my sincere hope of finding such alternatives to war. As CNN founder Ted Turner has on his desk: "Lead. Follow. Or get the hell out of the way."
No, bleeding heart liberals who seemingly take up the Muslim extremist's cause, alone against the world. Further, from Babak's post: "Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Spain, Italy and Canada are among the many other countries who agree with the US and Britain that Saddam must be removed from power."
Kuwait, Qatar, UAE,??? Yeah sure, LOL. The world community, haha. Thats why Bush isn't having any problems getting his crazy resolution through the UN. The Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox with an Iraq debate update. The paper says that the Secretary of State Powell and other, unnamed, White House officials suggested that the administration may back down from the demand that that any UN resolution include language authorizing military action. The NYT also mentions the possibility of a softer resolution, but buries that point in an article about how the U.S. dismissed Russia's criticism of the increasing number of U.S. and Brit airstrikes against Iraqi air defense sites. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2071805 Op-Ed from Guardian definitely worth a read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,800048,00.html Uncle oSAMa Says: I Want YOU To Invade Iraq Go ahead. Send me a new generation of recruits. Your bombs will fuel their hatred of America and their desire for revenge. Americans wonât be safe anywhere. Please, attack Iraq. Distract yourself from fighting Al Qaeda. Divide the international community. Go ahead. Destabilize the region. Maybe Pakistan will fall -- we want its nuclear weapons. Give Saddam a reason to strike first. He might draw Israel into a fight. Perfect! So please -- invade Iraq. Make my day. http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/6438
Aaahhh! I see now. We have tradefut2000 version 2.0 on our hands. That is someone who has a Ph.D in cut and past functions (especially as they pertain to Op-Ed pieces in newspapers around the world believing that by cutting and pasting them they prove their point) but then refrains from using the grey matter between their ears to engage in an intelligent conversation. Why not answer the two points that I brought up about your proposed containment policy?
I would imagine that usually they don't even read it, they lose any debate if they go point by point.
Containment seems to be working just fine for all our other dictatorial regimes, eg Pakistan, North Korea, etc. No problems. Indeed, it worked just fine for over 40 years vs the USSR. And, again, Pakistan already has ABC weapons, and is a breeding ground for terrorism. Does anybody care? Nope.