@EmuGod:
History has proven time and time again that America’s policy of non-interference in world affairs until they become personal has not worked. Hundreds died on the Lusitania in 1917, 2400 died at Pearl Harbor on the “date which will live in infamy” (December 7, 1941) and over 5000 on September 11, 2001. Each time the attack is worse and worse. A biological attack could wipe out 80% of a city such as Los Angeles very quickly. The time has come to break history’s repetition and to wake up early to smell the coffee.
5000 people did not die on Sept. 11. The number is closer to 2800. (40 were on flight 93 in Pa., and the latest count of the WTC is 2,797.) And it bears repeating: there is absolutely no reason to think Iraq had anything to do with the attacks of Sept. 11. We knew Germany sunk the Lusitania, we knew Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The current situation is different. Indead, the current situation is unique in that our enemy is not a foreign state, but a global cabal of murderous religious fanatic.
Attacking Iraq is silly. Saddam is as much of a threat today as he has been any time over the past 10 years. Why is it an issue now?
Because George W wants an Enemy upon which to focus national attention for political purposes. Has no one seen “Wag the Dog”? And of course, the military industry desparately needs government contracts, and of course all that precious oil that the American armed forces can seize.
About 340 Allied troops died in the Gulf War, in a war that took place mostly in Kuwait and the deserts of Iraq, rather than urban warfare. In 1991, it was clear to all that the war would end if Saddam consented to the twelve UN resolutions which focused on Iraq departing Kuwait. Now, it is about “regime change.” That means bombing Baghdad and every other Iraqi city, and then storming it with ground forces. That means something akin to “unconditional surrender.” Many more than 340 Allied troops are going to die, (and who knows how many innocent Iraqi civilians) and I do not see the point of sacrificing that many.
Instead of focusing time, money, and lives on ousting Saddam, the US and its allies should concentrate on destroying al Qaeda – you know, al Qaeda, the scumbags who we know actually do threaten America! It seems that George W has become frustrated that al Qaeda is such a difficult target to hit, so he has focused on Iraq because we know where that is.
Keep in mind that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was premised on mistruths. (President Johnson informed Americans that North Vietnam had attacked US naval vessels twice in August of 1965 without provocation. It’s now clear that one of those “attacks” never happened. The other probably did, but it wasn’t unprovoked – the USS Maddox was using radar etc. to assist the South Vietnamese navy attack North Vietnamese targets.) I don’t know why I should believe today’s administration when they try to convince me that Iraq presents a clear and present danger.
Moreover, I cannot agree that America’s “policy of non-interference in world affairs until they become personal has not worked.” By staying out of WWI and WWII until late in the game, the US suffered far fewer casualties and lost a lot less resources as compared to other combatants (e.g., Britain, Russia, China), but after both world wars the US gained considerable amounts of clout and enjoyed boomtime economies. So in that regard, USA’s style “worked” well for America, although not so well for many of USA’s allies, especially Britain who had to hold off Hitler all by itself for a while there before USA and USSR got involved. Compare that to Vietnam, where the US “interfered” quite a bit. I’m not sure if the Vietnam War worked well for anyone.
Finally, if concern for Israel is a motivating factor, keep in mind that Saddam did not launch Scuds at Israel until after the Allied attack in 1991. And in 1991, George Sr. pled with Israel and got the commitment that Israel would not retaliate, thereby threatening the unity of the Coalition, which included Islamic nations like Syria. Today, an invasion of Iraq might very well provoke Iraqi attacks against Israel. Today, there is no Coalition to undo, and I think it highly likely that Sharon would retaliate. In that region, it would not take much to escalate into a full-blown regional conflict…
