| Subject: Re: Why the sudden push to get Saddam? |
Author:
Astrid
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 13:16:13 09/15/02 Sun
In reply to:
Raisinmom
's message, "Re: Why the sudden push to get Saddam?" on 15:44:19 09/14/02 Sat
>Why invade Iraq? The simple answer that will be given
>by Bush: because Saddam is evil.
More or less evil than he was in 1988 when he was an ally who gassed the Kurds? ;-)
No, I am on board with regime change--I just have to question the timing.
>Second, the way
>Saddam will try to take out America or Israel is not
>by attacking them directly, but rather by selling or
>providing weapons (both conventional and weapons of
>mass destruction) to terrorist cells beholden to no
>one -- such as Al Qaeda.
Again, Saddam hasn't been linked to al Qaeda. He is known to support other terrorist groups, but not the Muslim fundamentalist ones. But guess who DOES support Islamist terrorism?? Saudi Arabia. Why not deal with this nation, aren't they a greater threat to US security?
>A third answer to the "why now" question is that it is
>politically feasible to do it now (it may not be in a
>year, when people start to forget the feeling of
>vulnerability created by 9/11). Bush doesn't care,
>and never will, whether the international community is
>behind this; all that matters to him is the US
>electorate. So moving now may be politically
>motivated.
Surely the US electorate cares about flouting international law...?
>I have to add that I disagree that the fact that the
>international community is against invasion means that
>invasion must be wrong.
Well, of course that isn't a necessary conclusion. My point is that it should give Americans pause.
I haven't entirely decided my
>view on taking on Iraq, but frankly have little faith
>right now in the political musings of Europe (for all
>the usual reasons, including anti-Americanism and the
>lessons of WWII). Moreover, while I have not yet read
>the Guardian link, the quote does not move me.
>Saddam's abuses are and have been egregious and
>intolerable. They may not need to be *more* egregious
>to justify putting an end to them -- perhaps we all
>should have acted a lot sooner and saved a lot of
>Kurdish lives.
I think the international community agrees that Saddam's abuses have been and are intolerable. The concerns, it seems to me, lie with the problems inherent to the destablisation of the Middle East.
Clearly there were things that could have been done years and years ago to prevent Saddam from continuing to commit human rights abuses. And again, I am in agreement with the idea of assisting with regime change. I just wonder why people like Powell and Rumsfeld are of different opinion on this issue.
Astrid
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 