Posted by SleepingHare on 1/25/2003, 2:21 am, in reply to "Inevitable Discussion: Iraq" Saddam is dangerous, personally detestable, and hellbent on building nukes. There is certainly cause to go in and remove him from power, even without the final word from weapons inspectors. There was never a peace, just a ceasefire. Saddam has repeatedly violated the ceasefire and so have the Americans. That alone is a sufficient pretext in my mind. My main concern is that this war actually might be waged to prevent weapons proliferation. I think that's a losing battle, and at best dangerous nations can be slowed down. Unless the US plans to invade every nation on Earth with plans to build nukes they will ultimately fail to stop proliferation. A totally implausible explanation is that the US is serious about wanting to bring democracy to Iraq. I doubt they care much and considering the divisions within Iraq I don't think it would be realistically possible in the short-term. Waging this war for US oil companies would be crass and indefensible considering the potential costs and risks. I'm hoping that is at best a secondary motive. The best reason to wage this war is to remove a dangerous man from power before he acquires nukes. He is a risk-taker and may gamble he can safely reinvade Kuwait and possibly go after a juicier target like Saudi Arabia if he ever got nukes and long-range missiles in his possession. In that scenario you are merely looking to replace Saddam with a pro-American dictator who reduces repression slightly and is snuggles and kisses with US oil execs. Under the wing of US protection this new dictator ceases to menace his neighbours and uses American support rather than a local nuclear program to deal with regional threats, like a nuclear Iran. Spinning this into an altruistic looking policy would be within the realm of possibility just as long as you were never entirely honest. The UK is being sensible by siding with the US. The Anglo-American alliance is still very useful. Besides, Bush is not going to change his mind because of what Europe says, so why not go along? The French, Germans, and Russians all have commercial interests in Iraq. Greedy calculations and popularity boosts from appearing anti-American are probably motivating them far more than pacifism. The Chinese are afraid a more aggressive and unilateral US could threaten them, so they will be cautiously opposed to the war. If war comes they can't and won't do much more than complain. If their financial interests were guaranteed by the US, Russia would probably openly support the conflict. The Germans would probably come around. The French might not, unless they decide they don't like appearing as irrelevant as they really are.
24.57.57.232
I still want to know why Bush wants to go into Iraq and what he plans to do assuming he wins. Every imaginable explanation has been given by critics, supporters, his administration, and even Bush himself. The misinformation campaign his administration has been waging over Iraq has succeeded. I'm very confused.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread