Little Support for Attack on Iraq

The US wants to attack Iraq, I think that's fairly clear (though they may be putting pressure on to force Iraq into letting weapons inspectors back). Support is drying up though. Here in the UK public opinion is shifting away from Blair's position and several cabinet members have hinted that they would resign should the UK participate. That may change, but there is definitely little enthusiasm for a conflict that could drag Israel in - if that happens stand back and watch the fireworks! (and look for over $40 a barrel - bombing Iraq could crush an economic recovery).

No Saudi, no Turkey, no Kuwait, no Europe, no Russia, no China and UK edging away. Can the US do this on its own without risking catastrophe?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm a unique American as I want peace but in my own country they rarely grant me the freedom of speech and say things like " You should leave the country if that is how you feel". It's sad over here right now like a bunch of blood hungry dogs lead by Bush. But I express my freedom of speech alot. smiles

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Justagirl, you are unique but hardly alone in your beliefs. In the US a person has the legal right to freedom of speech. Doesn’t mean the people ya talk to won’t exercise their freedom of speech to shout back and wave a fist in yer face. You won’t be jailed for speaking out. You might be beaten up. (Hopefully the perpetrators would be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted. The police…if they aren’t the ones doing the beating…might be slow coming to your aid. If the DA has political ambitions she might feel the case not worth prosecuting. The judge might decide you used poor judgment in provoking patriotic citizens. Still, you have the full protection of the law.)

In most US communities non-conformist opinions generate anger but a person isn’t in danger for speaking out. (Though you may be in danger by being alive in a neighborhood where some would rather that you be dead.) The US is made up of many diverse communities. One’s practical “freedom of speech” will vary from community to community.

The emotional aftermath of 911 does make questioning government policy a risky business. Good that you still speak out. Once their anger cools many people will remember your words and perhaps choose to act less like dogs and more like humans. They may still disagree with you.

A person might question the value of “freedom of speech” when the penalty for speaking out is harsh. This hamster had a friend who described her experience growing up in Red China. (She is a very bright woman who is unable to return to her home due to her participation in Tiananmen Square demonstrations.) Her father was an officer in the People’s Army.

At an early age she and her younger brother were removed from her family. (She could visit her mother once a week.) In the communal setting any dissident statement would be reported and punishment would be swift and severe. Her only protection was to not think “wrong” thoughts. Being very bright she did extremely well in high school. After high school she was transferred to a rural community where she performed back-breaking manual labor in the fields. She had nothing in common with the ignorant peasants. Any expression of dissatisfaction led to the community ostracizing her. She was hopeless as there was no end to this “sentence”. She expected to end her life working in those fields with people with whom she shared nothing.

Fortunately, China changed it’s educational policies and re-opened universities. High test scores gained her one of the few openings. Later tests got her a position with a German company operating in China and that led to training in Germany. She never went back.

She loves her home and family and hopes that someday she’ll be able to visit. She will never be completely comfortable with US society and all the “big noses”. However the freedom to think her own thoughts and feel her own feelings still amazes her.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

smiles that was well said and well thought out. Thanks for your post as it put on a "big smile" on my face

 

Captain Canada, do you believe that America would attak Iraq if the U.N. inspectors were allowed to inspect?

 

thats a fast. The US knows that their is no way the weapon inspectors will be alowed in and even if they are and find NOTHING the US will STILL find SOME reason to atack them. Maybe to "FREE THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ".

 

Weapons Inspectors

I think that if Iraq allowed weapons inspectors back (and I think they probably will) the US would have a very hard time justifying an attack. US policy has been using the nuclear/chameical/biological weapons threat as justification. If the weapons inspectors are back, that justification is dead in the water.

But...
There is now a shift in policy. Tenet (CIA chief) has now said that Iraq MAY have links with al-Qaida and that it's POSSIBLE there have been CONTACTS. Shifting a justification for attack? Straws, clutching at?

May, possible, could have - the US has no evidence on this one - the evidence of weapons was shaky enough, but now this weird about-face by the CIA on al-Qaida/Iraq. Why does the US want to attack Iraq so badly? I mean, if they aren't linked to al-Qaida, what are the Americans so worried about? What's the reason behind this? Why not try to get Bin Laden instead? Do you guys want to take out one of Israel's possible foes for them? What's that got to do with 9-11?

Iraq will actually play it smart this time and let the UN back in. If they do that, the US will have even more difficulty than they do now (and I can't really see how they can invade if Saudi, Kuwait and Turkey are all refusing to let them launch attacks). Bush could start looking even more incompetent...

 

Your right, that is why we won't attack.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Have a nice day.

 

I don't feel Bush is being honest with us as he added North Korea as a possible target. Bush has no intentions of attacking Korea as China would take offense just like they did last time. That means he is controlling the press to spread lies. I feel the biggest reason Bush wants to attack Iraq is to "just take out the leaders" something his father regrets not doing. I supported the last action in Iraq as so did most of the world as it was about freeing a country that had done no wrong. But Bush SR blew it and Bush JR wants to solve it but now I can't support him nor buy his smokescreen as the spyplane proves Bush is in no hurry to fight China

 

What do you base your guess on?

What if North Korea attacks first?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ha ha ha, ok Nostradamus, well my tarot cards say different.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't think North Korea will attack the South Korea either as long as we are their. I base my opinion of Bush's demands during the spyplane incident and how the The Chinese took it apart anyways knowing Bush was all talk unless it's a small country

 

You are right im gessing but im gessing based on the quality of the people in power. I seriously belive that nomater WHAT happens the US will atack Iraq. I just hope little johny is smart enough to pull out of this before then

 

Concerning Iraq and Bush Sr.

Bush Sr. didn't blow by not toppiling Saddam. We never seriously planned to remove him from power. The mission was to liberate Kuwait, and weaken Saddam so he wouldn't become a problem for a long time. It worked Saddam hasn't been agressive per se since the Gulf War. Only problem is that the UN inspectors that were designed to keep his teeth from re-growing are gone and now he's developing an arsenal of WMDs.

Odds are Saddam isn't going to let the inspectors back in, or cooperate with the cease-fire they signed. After the Israeli-Palestinian situation levels off there will be an attack on Iraq.

 

I have to say. If there is then may god have mersy on our souls because i see the comming of Nuklear war.

 

I tend to think Saddam might well let weapons inspectors back in, but what we're beginning to hear now (and will probably hear more of later) is that weapons inspectors will not be able to detect or dismantle his weapons programme. This, at least, is what Iraqi defectors are saying. I think the arguments are being put in place to justify an attack regardless of Iraqi compliance or otherwise with weapons inspectors. I have no idea how true these Iraqi defector reports are (I have doubts), but they do help set up the prospect of an attack regardless of Iraqi manouvering.

The time-scale is shifted though. What's happening in the occupied territories is a concern for the US and their position vis-a-vis Arab allies. The US needs at least Kuwait and Turkey onside to do anything and would prefer at least tacit Arab support. Something will have to be done to keep Israel on the leash.

Added ointo the equation is the endgame - if the US is serious about replacing Saddam, they need to figure out who with and this is no easy task. He'll have to be accepted by Shi'as, Sunnis, Kurds and Arab neighbours. It will take time.

The Israel thing has probably set the Iraq thing back until 2003. Still reckon it's a big mistake, and a highly dangerous thing to do given the mood in the region. Hope I'm wrong.

 

Odds are that an attack on Iraq may not happen until 2003 which is bad for a few reasons.

One, support is still high at home for the war. I doubt it will significatnly weign but it might.

Two, Saddam knows he's going to get axed, which gives him a precious commoditity: time. He can now stockpile more weapons, play with sanctions, make embargos, sponsor terrorism and most importantly go full on into finishing a long range missile, nuclear weapon or both.

If Saddam knows he's going to be kaput, he'll give Weapons of Mass Destruction to terrorists regardless of what happens. If he's finished he'll try to take as many Americans down with him.

There has been a massive, yet quite, build up of troops in the Perisan Gulf. Cheney went there to drum up support, then all hell broke loose in the Mid-East. The attack will likely come before summer's end. I think the Israeli-Palestinian mess is cooling down, there will be some cease-fire or peace in the next few months.

 

Isn't this exactly what any country (including the US) would do if they found out they were about to be atacked by a country with overwelming odds?

whats wrong with preparing to defend your country?

I don't think anyone SHOULD atack them

 

I'm not the least bit suprised, but worried about the export of weapons and terror from Iraq. If a nation found itself in our exact situation they would be readying to use similar means in order to topple the regime.

 

Haven't you guys heard? Only the USA is allowed to have massive weapons build-ups and weapons of mass destruction and bio-agents. Anyone else doing it is a "Rogue Nation".

Note: sarcasm.