Why the US must invade Iraq? - salon .com

[peaccenicked]

http://www.salon.com/politics/comics/2002/...ions/index.html (http://www.salon.com/politics/comics/2002/08/08/corrections/index.html)

[Americana]

There are other reasons for attacking Iraq...
Saddam probably provides money to terrorist groups...
and right now in the US, we dont really like terrorism that much.

[Tkinter1]

WOW that cartoon didn't blatantly lie.

[Anonymous]

Reasons for invading Iraq:

1. Saddam is a dictator, so any action taken by any free nation against his government and/or military is justified.

2. Iraq is a threat to other oil sources in the middle east.

3. Jewish lobby groups pressuring washington to take action against Iraq before Israel gets hurt.

4. Iraq funding terrorist organizations and producing biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

And that boys and girls is why the U.S. should invade Iraq.

(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 5:32 am on Aug. 9, 2002)


(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 5:33 am on Aug. 9, 2002)

[vox]

Dark Capitalist is wrong, of course.

1) Whether a dictator or not, the US does not have the right to overthrow another country. Doing so violates all kinds of international law (that same law that the US is so very serious about when condemning her enemies). If Dark Capitalist is claiming the moral ground rather than the legal ground, then the previous support the US has given to dictators (Batista, Pinochet, Samoza, etc) certainly invalidates any perceived moral high ground.

2) The rignt-wingers may want to believe this, but the countries that surround Iraq don't. Not even Kuwait supports the action planned by the US. The US stands virtually alone, planning an attack without any aggresive action taken by Iraq at all.

3) This may or may not be true. However, if it is true, it's no reason at all. Dark Capitalist says here that the president must attack another nation to appease a domestic constituency. This has to be one of the most hideous reasons one can think of for war.

4) Two issues here. First, the claim is made that Iraq supports terrorism, but no evidence of this is provided. Indeed, according to Phyllis Bennis, the "State Department's own compilation of terrorist activity in its 2001 Patterns of Global Terrorism, released May 2002, does not document a single serious act of international terrorism by Iraq." The US spent a lot of money after Sept. 11 looking for a link to Iraq, but none was found.

Second, the infamous "weapons of mass destruction" argument. But we know that's not a reason. How do we know this? The US government has said so. John Bolton said on the "Today" show that "our policy... insists on regime change in Baghdad and that policy will not be altered, whether inspectors go in or not." (Source (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0808-06.htm)) That's the line that been coming from the Bush administration for some time now. Weapons inspectors could go back in to Iraq, but the administration doesn't care about that. It wants war.

I posted Phyllis Bennis' written statement to the Senate committee holding hearings on Iraq before, but I'll link it again here. It clearly shows how horribly wrongheaded this plan is.

Phyllis Bennis on Iraq (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-02.htm)

vox

[Americana]

Vox.

Iraq hates the United States.
Iraq is a dictatorship.
Iraq has not taken any aggresive actions against the US.
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
But how long is it untill they use them?

"Don't shoot down the plane untill it hits one of the towers."
same situation.

[vox]

Americana,

Asked and answered. Your post adds nothing to this thread. Your points have been dealt with, I believe.

vox

[Americana]

just bringing it to your attention

[I Will Deny You]

I start a thread with a long, thought-out piece written by the founder of Salon.com on why the US shouldn't invade Iraq, and no one responds.

Peaccenicked starts a thread with a comic from Salon.com on why the US shouldn't invade Iraq, and he gets responses.

Thanks, everyone. I love you too.

Lindsay

[American Kid]

Noooooooooo, no! Lindsay, don't let the sadness of the swamps get to you!

(wait, you've an immunity to depression; I hate you) :)

vox, cut the new guy some slack. This is why everyone (dictionary definition) hates you.

vox= 0 communication skills

-AK

[PunkRawker677]

I dont hate vox, and i'm sure most people dont "hate" them. They might dislike him but i think hate is a litte strong a word considering we just know each other over an internet message board.

IWDY
I didnt even see your thread.. sorry! i'll go respond now!!

[The Che]

The US should stay out of Iraq. It's only going to get matter worse and increase instability in the region even more.

[Social Democratic]

The motive is purely economic sadly, they need to secure oil production and will go to any lengths to secure it. Even killing civilians, just for economics??? its crazy, just madd, bush is just finishing business off that his dad didnt.

[vox]

Ahh, yet another post about how terrible I am. It's much easier to talk about that than about Iraq. As for communication skills, I think I communicated precisely what I wanted to. But then, right-wingers always rely on avoiding the issue, don't they?

vox

[marxistdisciple]

Sadly, yes it is about economics. Every reason the government gives for invading is starting to look very tenuous. They have been unable to link Iraq with terrorism in any real sense (there has been a lot of rumours spreading, but no evidence.) There is also no evidence at ALL that they have weapons of mass destruction, (even according to the UN chief weapons inspector.) the US have already said, and saddam well knows that it will make little difference letting inspectors back in, the US troops are already prepared to mobilise.

And the only reason that seems to therefore remain is that the US don't like Saddam. Which really isn't going to cut it. Bush got to power without a proper democratic election which sort of makes him a dictator too. Starts to look pretty much a sham to me. The war on Iraq would have two advantages however, 1) the usual oil story. 2) distracts attention away from corporate confidence issues.

In fact, whenever an issue of national importance comes up since September, the government has flooded the news with press releases about terrorism which are largely unfounded and suffer from a chronic lack of evidence, i.e. lies.

The question does remain however, will anyone support the US in this war? The war will be a violation of UN resolutions as they stand, and the UN security council has not replied to Iraq's inspection negotiations either. I sincerely hope Blair pulls his support for this attack (the backbenchers and the catholic church are furious here, and opinion polls show the majority of the country is against it.) The german leader, Shroder (sp?) has already proclaimed that he shall not be supporting the US at all in their attack. When will Washington get the hint?

Really, when it comes down to any hard look at the evidence, any remote use of sense and open mind, (just like in most european countries) you come to the same conclusion. It isn't justifiable, not even remotely, not even nearly, even by the usual yardstick measure of "anti-terrorism."

In the end, if the US do take this to war, which is looking more likely by the day, I hope Blair is brave enough to do something most prime ministers never did to the one sided Anglo-American relationship; drop support for this war. We britons don't want to be involved, and I don't think most of europe does either. In any case, I believe the US should be tried for every war crime they commit, in the international court. They are not a law to themselves, and they are not the higher moral power.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Leftists seem to just ignore the fact thast saddam is attempting to secure means and materials for large-scale WMD, including nuclear proliferation. The US government intelligence said it now has further evidence supporting this claim, and it will be released soon.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59862,00.html

[Americana]

Taking Iraq out is not the goal. Taking out Saddam is the goal. I don't think it will increase instability in the region, but it may increase terrorism towards the USA.
And why dont the damn jews just give the palestinians a fuckin state... and is Yassir Arafat dead?

[vox]

I read the story from Fox that CI indicated in his post, but I didn't see anything about "evidence" being realeased soon. Did I just miss it? Did anyone else see it in that story?

vox

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from vox on 4:54 pm on Aug. 11, 2002
I read the story from Fox that CI indicated in his post, but I didn't see anything about "evidence" being realeased soon. Did I just miss it? Did anyone else see it in that story?

vox


I thought there was a link in that story that was a corollary supporting my claim. I will have to try and find it again

[vox]

To CI, or anyone else,

If you find any evidence of Iraq being an imminent threat, PLEASE POST IT.

So far, I've found nothing, and I read a lot of news.

vox

[peaccenicked]

From DC.
2. Iraq is a threat to other oil sources in the middle east.
Just pure bullshit.
Just one of the off the cuff lies that come from Republicans.
The CIA conducting imperialist machinations gave the US the go ahead for the invasion of Kuwait, whose foriegn debt to Iraq was massive.