Humanitarian war?
Yes, Saddam might refuse to let his civilian population leave, preferring to use them as human shields.
All these 'attack Baghdad' discussions assume that Saddam will be in Baghdad. Doesn't he have many 'palaces' and bunkers spread over the countryside? Why would he hole up in the one place he knows we'll look?
1. He will continue to develop the means and the where-with-all to deliver bio and chem weapons.
2. He will soon have nuclear weapons.
3. His shaky Arab neighbors will provide him more and more deference as he thumbs his nose successfully at the rest of the world.
4. The UN will provide him more and more support and the US more and more hatred. They only tolerate the US because of our strength. 5. He will be more and more successful in shaking down the rest of the Arab world for funds.
6. He will become the de facto leader of over 1 billion Muslims.
7. With nuc weapons developed and available in his back pocket his adventurism will increase and eventually will know no bounds.
8. He will assume control of possibly 50% of exportable oil. (Not necessarily ownership but fascistic control) 9. He will end up using those nucs, bio, chem weapons. 10. Write off Isreal
11. The 911 attack on us will resemble a tea party compared to what he will make happen here.
A do nothing decision carries orders of magnitude more risk.
Yesterday on FR a long thread put the lie to the Time's claim that the White House has concluded that it needs no congressional authority to attack Iraq. The truth is the exact opposite. The White House already HAS such authority in the form of Senate Joint Resolution 23, which passed, and which was posted in full on FR yesterday.
BTT.
Congressman Billybob