Originally posted by MaggieL
tw, I'm far from alone in thinking Iraq has and is developing WMD. Just the fact that he's worked so hard to keep the effective inspections he agreed to from happening is suggestive, if not probative.
Get outside the US - or even get away from this admininstration's closest supporters, and there is little reason to believe that Iraq has WMD. If US news services such as Time Magazine really reported news, then you would see how little the world agrees with George Jr and C Rice. If that evidence existed, then countries with spies in Iraq would not be disputing George Jr's claims. A proven existance of WMD is essential before anyone can justify an attack on Iraq. The UN will not authorize an attack on Iraq because the evidence does not exist - Chancellor Shröder's thinking. How to get around George Jr without destroying a long term relationship with America.
Before we can solve the problem, first Iraq's neighbors must see a threat. Unfortunately, Iraq will have to use some weapons on a neighbor before we have any right to attack - before anyone will see the threat. Those are realities of life.
Even worse, if he does have WMD and we do attack Iraq, then we are still the loser. As hermit22 notes:
hardly anyone is talking about the repercussions of the attack.
Hermit22 provides but a few negative consequences if we unilaterally attack. The negative consequences to American would be worldwide.
Why were we so successful in the 1990 Gulf War? Every world embassy in Bagdhah was a spy center for the US led coalition. We paid almost nothing of the $100billion+ to fight that war. We obtained unprecendent logistical support from virtually any country we required. That means even JP4 refineries in the Signapore region changed whole production and delivery schedules to provide special, emergency support to US military needs. Countries throughout the world helped to keep military supply and actions secret - even going so far as to not make it known where US transports were or were going. Oil producing countries such as Venezuela and Mexico made special efforts to maintain and if necessasry, supplement world oil supplies. Did you know of hundreds of trains, just in southern Europe alone, specially diverted and rushed into service just to get US military into Saudia Arabia - so that the 101st Airborne was not a Saddam speed bump?
None of these advantages will be made available if we unilaterally attack Iraq. Why do you think the military keeps leaking attack plans? This attack nonsense being pushed down their throat will mean a second Gulf War not as successful and negative consequences for US military and intelligence services worldwide. Those military men understand the consequeces after fighting has stopped. The US will be #1 target of every suicide bomber. For those who don't watch the middle east, the US currently is not a #1 target. We were the #1 target last time we unilaterally interfered - in Lebanon. Remember all those dead in the Marine barracks and at both 'truck bombed' US Embassies in Lebanon? Those negative consequences are directly traceable to a Reagan need to attack 'terrorists' in Lebanon.
Our treaties do not say we must defend our allies. It says our allies must first maintain sufficient forces and defend themselves. First they must take the proper attitude and provisions. Only when they get in trouble, only then are we obligated to help. Iraq is first and foremost a problem of adjacent nations - none of which see a threat.
Already in too many parts of the world, other countries don't bother to provide sufficient military because the US will pay for it all. Take Europe as a classic example. Except for Britian, not one European nation can conduct any signficant warfare beyond their borders. Why bother? The US taxpayer provides Euorpe with all the necessary military both in Europe and overseas.
At some point, we must let the childern sink or swim. If not, they will never grow up. The middle east is just that. If Saddam is the threat as claimed by this meddling administration, then Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Syria, and Russia would be right in, on, and against the threat. None see a threat - and virtually all have spies in Iraq. We don't even have spies in country. They who have people on the ground don't see a threat that George Jr claims. If the threat exists, they will be the first ones at risk.
On Sept 12, George Jr goes before the UN to make his case. We have already seen some test ballons floated. None took flight. Why? There is no evidence of a threat. The threat only exists because the threat might exist. But since this administration has first decided a threat exists and then goes looking for the evidence, then everything George Jr and company say about Iraq between now and Sept 12 must be viewed like it was Gulf of Tonkin. This administration had decided Iraq was a threat before they had any evidence. Already the US has lost credibility throughout the world - and George Jr has not yet finished making his case.
This "Iraq has WMD" is but one more reason, in a long list of reasons, why other governments - America's closest friends - are saying off the record that they don't trust this President. They are hoping that George Jr will not be around for a second term so that they can again cooperate with America.
A unilteral attack on Iraq without Saddam first attacking will have far more negative consequences than any WMD that Saddam may have. One need only learn the lessons of Reagan, Oliver North, the USS New Jersey, and Lebanon to understand how destructive an attack on Iraq will be for all Americans throughtout the world. That is what major Republicans such as Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III understand.
Even Henry Kissinger (who favors an attack) says there is no evidence of WMD (Scary - Kissinger was also a contributor to that report that advocated confiscation of Saudia Arabian oil fields). Regardless of whether those WMD exist or not, we cannot attack without definitive proof of their existance. Even rumored proof will not be sufficient. The negative consequences of this presidents speculations, if acted upon, will be far reaching.
Keep in mind the difference here. On 1 Aug 1990 (11PM Eastern time), I knew we must attack Saddam with no reservations. I had been predicting the war months earlier. Back then, this was a minority viewpoint - even in the George Sr administration. Facts then made a military campaign necessary. One might then conclude I am a hawk. No. There were fundamentally essential reasons for going to war. None currently exist in Iraq. Therefore am I a dove? No. I use sources far beyond those who know only what is on Ch 6 Action News. Those same sources that demonstrated the 1990 Gulf War is necessary also demonstrate the fallicy of attacking Iraq today.