Posted on 08/20/2002 3:44:40 AM PDT by efnwriter
War on Iraq: Case for Invasion
Jonathan Rhodes August 20, 2002
The US has begun in earnest to state its case for an Invasion of Iraq.
The latest Washington Post poll shows 69% of Americans favor military action to force Saddam from power. 75 % of Americans view Iraq as a threat, the poll found. Nearly 7 in 10 -- 69 percent -- supported taking some form of military action to force Hussein from power, a level of support unchanged since January. Fewer than 1 in 4 -- 22 percent -- said they opposed such action. The poll continued to whittle down the level of support as more complex questions were asked.
Politicians opposed to President Bush's use of a preemptive attack held the day earlier last week. [National Debate Begins]
The Administration next joined the debate. Dr. Condalezza Rice Donald Rumsfeld President George W. Bush
Dr. Condalezza Rice, National Security Advisor recorded a BBC interview August 15 stating:
"We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing...if Saddam Hussein is left in power, doing the things that he's doing now, this is a threat that will emerge, and emerge in a very big way. "
"This is an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbors and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, on all of us."
"History is littered with cases of inaction that led to very grave consequences for the world. We just have to look back and ask how many dictators who end up being a tremendous global threat, and killing thousands, and indeed millions of people, should we have stopped in their tracks."
"The case for regime change is very strong. This is a regime that we know has twice tried and come closer than we thought at the time to acquiring nuclear weapons. He has used chemical weapons against his own people and against his neighbors, he has invaded his neighbors, he has killed thousands of his own people. He shoots at our planes, our airplanes, in the no-fly zones where we are trying to enforce U.N. security resolutions."
Addressing concerns about a regime change in Iraq would worsen the situation in Iraq and the Middle East region she stated
[it was] "rather hard to imagine a more miserable life for the Iraqi people than they currently have."
"I would think that at the end of any action that we might take toward regime change, it would be an obligation for all of us to make certain that things are better for the people of the country and the people of the region."
And regarding the mostly Euro/Arab view that a linear policy should be followed in dealing with Israel/Palestine issue she said,
"The president laid out a very aggressive agenda and a very aggressive vision for a different kind of Middle East, one in which you have two states. He's been by far more direct in talking about two states than any American president has dared be. He's called it Palestine, for goodness sake, and now that's changed the terms of the debate," Rice said. "In order to get there we have to have a leadership that is committed on the Palestinian side to dealing with the terrorism in its midst."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appeared on Fox News, interviewed by Bret Baier.
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld told Fox News we can't afford to wait before dealing with threats from places like Iraq in an exclusive interview Monday, and warned that U.S. intelligence about Saddam Hussein's development of weapons of mass destruction may be years behind.
"The people who argued have to ask themselves how they are going to feel at that point where another event occurs and it's not a conventional event but an unconventional event, and ask themselves the question, 'Was it right to have wanted additional evidence or additional time, or another U.N. resolution?'"
"It is always easier for a country, think of the prelude to World War II, think of all the countries that said, 'Well, we don't have enough evidence.' I mean Meine Kampf had been written, Hitler indicated what he had intended to do," Rumsfeld said. "Maybe he won't attack, maybe he won't do this or that. Well, there were millions of people dead because of the miscalculations had he been stopped early as he might have been done at minimal cost, minimal cost in lives, but no that wasn't done."
President Bush has said he will consult with Congress and U.S. allies, but Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said the administration would not expect other NATO allies to participate.
"Our European allies are just not relevant to this. And the one of some importance, the United Kingdom, is, I believe, going to be with us," said Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel. "The rest of the Europeans prefer to look the other way or cut deals with Saddam or buy him off in various ways."
President George W. Bush said in an interview in Crawford, Texas, August 16, 2002
Q: Mr. President, not all Republicans seem sold on your intention to deal with dictators who gas their own people. What are you going to do to make that case more persuasively? Are you consulting with them? And, what is your obligation of getting approval, not just consultation, with Congress?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I appreciate that question. First of all, I am aware that some very intelligent people are expressing their opinions about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I listen carefully to what they have to say.
There should be no doubt in anybody's mind this man is thumbing his nose at the world, that he has gassed his own people, that he is trouble in his neighborhood, that he desires weapons of mass destruction. I will use all the latest intelligence to make informed decisions about how best to keep the world at peace, how best to defend freedom for the long run.
We'll continue to consult. Listen, it's a healthy debate for people to express their opinion. People should be allowed to express their opinion. But America needs to know, I'll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own country plus our friends and allies.
The Wall Street Journal said August 19 in Review and Outlook: This is Opposition?:
President Bush has from the beginning understood the broader moral and strategic implications of the war on terrorism and its state sponsors. He has increasingly cast his foreign policy in Reaganite terms of freedom and self-determination for Muslims -- for Afghans, Iranians and even Palestinians. This is something most Republicans, and indeed most Americans, instinctively understand and will support if Mr. Bush decides to liberate Iraq
Ohhh. Now that's something to hang our hats (and GI's) on: Nose thumbing! Wow! Trouble in his neighborhood! Wow! Wants weapons of mass destruction! Wow! Just like India, Pakistan, GB, Israel, Russia? When do we invade them?
When they try to assassinate our former presidents, blow up our embassies and military barracks, attack our ships, shoot down our civilian airliners, blow up our federal buildings, set off pipe bombs in Atlanta, attack our skyscrapers, distribute anthrax through our postal system, and generally make a pain-in-the-@ss of themselves...
When they lose a war with us and then fail to abide by the peace treaty. We don't need another reason.
Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
George Washington's Farewell Address
"History is littered with cases of
that led to very grave consequences for the world.
So you think that applies…
Sure, the US is just a "favorite" nation. Not a fair, just, legal, and proper nation, it's just a "favorite" one. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the US… We all have our "favorites", what's the difference… They're all the same, right?
No common interests huh? Like after 911, it doesn't matter to all of us that Iraq's about to go nuclear (and therefore be untouchable) and become an oil rich, brutal, fascist safe haven for the kind of malevolent anti-western crusade that inspires these attacks. Sure, no common interest there. Thanks for your post.
Your poor judgement in taking George Washington's statement and applying it here is only surpassed by you elitism. I presume they were both sharpened in the many hours you spent re-reading Atlas Shrugged and fanaticizing about the ideal government according to Rand.
It seems President Bush has learned the lesson of history. Bravo President Bush. These seame Euro-peeon countries (save for the U.K.) were all too willing to look the other way when Hitler rose to power and stated his intentions in Mein Kampf which was his own blueprint for war.
All the while these same Euro-peeons were saying/thinking "Maybe Hitler will leave us alone... Hitler was putting his armies in position and working feverishly on the weapons of war.
President Bush understands this. Our friends the Israeli's, British and indeed the American people do too. It's too bad the rest of the world has forgotten the lessons of WW2 and Hitler just some 60 short years ago.
Will history repat itself? I don't know the answer to that question, but it appears that President Bush is determined that it doesn't. I don't support President Bush on everything, but on this, he's 110% right.
My God! You're right! Saddam Hussein is just a peaceful indigenous native, wishing to be left along to live in his nation in peace with nature. He's only forced to arm himself with WMDs to defend against our brutal treatment of his people and reckless colonization of their land. That's a wonderful analogy! You're a genius!
At the end of the day, the United States will do what is in her own best interests, in her own self defense.
We are the leaders of the free world. The message is clear: Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way because the United States will defend herself from all enemies, period. When the United States leads, the rest of the world follows. And that is as it should be.
We will no longer wait for our enemies to attack us. We will not tolerate the loss of 3,000+ innocent American lives through brutal acts of terrorism and war, as were lost on Sept. 11th 2001.
Any suggestion by those on the "other side" of the issue that we must wait for "world opinion" to come our way is simply absurd and is offensive to the memories of those lost on Sept. 11th. Certainly those saying "wait" would be singing a different tune if their loved ones were lost, and they took a serious look at the case against Iraq.
But then, maybe they don't have the mental capacity for logic & reasoning to understand the evidence. Typical of the anti-war crowd. Emotion over Evidence.
Which is precisely why many Nazi soldiers were put on trial in Nuremburg, and why to this day when a living SS or other high-ranking Nazi soldier is found living in the U.S. or Canada they are deported back to Germany to be put on trial.
You do know that your argument is ideologically bankrupt by now, don't you? But you go ahead and keep making statements like this. You do our side much good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.