July 31, 2002

12:20 PM

Doubtful that the US will strike Iraqby the end of this year, says chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph Biden (D-Delaware). "I'm convinced the administration has not made up their mind yet," Biden said. Should we go to Baghdad and topple Saddam, or not? Is Saddam an immediate threat?
posted by Kevin Sanders (19 comments total)

I don't think the administration has demonstrated that he presents a "clear and present danger" to the security of the United States. If we invaded Iraq on suspicion of WMD production, wouldn't that obligate us to treat other regimes with similar programs the same way, ie Libya, N. Korea, Iran?
posted by pjgulliver at 12:36 PM on July 31, 2002

Doubtful. Libya is playing nice, North Korea is at least pretending to moderate, and Iran has a viable opposition. Iraq is a far more egregious example than those three.
posted by apostasy at 12:39 PM on July 31, 2002

Sure, of course I agree with you about the fact that we would not unleash attacks on those countries. Frankly, we couldn't do it, and it would totally turn the rest of the world against us. My point is, what is so special about Iraq that we should risk the lives of thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of American military personnel, not to mention the horrific tole such a war would place on Iraqi civilians and normal military personnel?
posted by pjgulliver at 12:42 PM on July 31, 2002

How about toppling this thread, which is, well, a rehash.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:45 PM on July 31, 2002

I agree with Paris. A nitwit know-nothing politician says we might not invade Iraq by the end of the year. Great.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:58 PM on July 31, 2002

"Hey, kettle, you're hue-challenged!"
posted by JollyWanker at 1:01 PM on July 31, 2002

Hardley a "nitwit know-nothing politician." Rather, the man legally obligated to assess war plans by the US. Remember, the President cannot send the nation to war, only the Congress. Because he is a ranking Senate member, I take Biden's comments about something like this seriously.
posted by pjgulliver at 1:01 PM on July 31, 2002

or you could just mark it as even more disinformation. There is so many comtradicting stories coming out of DC by high-ranking officials that Sadam's head must be spinning.
posted by Mick at 1:04 PM on July 31, 2002

...what is so special about Iraq that we should risk the lives of thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of American military personnel, not to mention the horrific tole such a war would place on Iraqi civilians and normal military personnel?

Getting Bush re-elected?
posted by signal at 1:05 PM on July 31, 2002

Remember, the President cannot send the nation to war, only the Congress.

There is no practical limit to the president's power as commander-in-chief to commit the US military to combat action. However, I suppose he cannot publicly acknowledge it is a "war" until congress approves.
posted by plaino at 1:06 PM on July 31, 2002

Thankfully, none of the "luminaries" in this thread influence
foreign policy.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:25 PM on July 31, 2002

Paris are you saying we don't live in a democracy? Can't every citizen (MeFi luminary or not) influence foreign policy? Not to make a direct comparison, but the feelings of many citizens about the war in Viet Nam certainly had an effect on foreign policy.

Regarding who else might be able to influence foreign policy, OpenSecrets.org has a few answers.
posted by cell divide at 1:47 PM on July 31, 2002

Should we go to Baghdad and topple Saddam, or not? Is Saddam an immediate threat?

hell, why don't we build a giant laser to cut the middle east off it's tectonic plate and sink it into the ocean? we could erect fields of oil platforms in it's place and save the rest of the world untold amounts of money and diplomacy.
posted by mcsweetie at 1:55 PM on July 31, 2002

Cell, I just think calling the President of the United States stupid is wrong. The thread is juvenile. Which is understandible, since its a facimile of too many. Where's the depth? The analysis? The freshness. The Metatalk...
posted by ParisParamus at 2:04 PM on July 31, 2002

Thankfully, none of the "luminaries" in this thread influence foreign policy.

Yourself included, bigot-boy.
posted by riviera at 2:12 PM on July 31, 2002

Remember, the President cannot send the nation to war, only the Congress.

Actually, the resolution that Congress passed last fall for the War on Terror allows the President to go after any country that harbours terrorists. Witness Secretary Rumsfeld's statement this week claiming that Iraq shelters and supports al Qaeda operatives. If the administration were to beef up this claim, the current resolution could be enough to authorize military action.
posted by reverendX at 2:38 PM on July 31, 2002

Sure, if Iraq is proven conclusively to support Al Qaeda. However, the war powers act still stands. And make no mistake, a war on Iraq will be no quick easy affair. And it will entail a significant American presence long after the hostilities are over.

Again, how is Iraq threatening the US right now?
posted by pjgulliver at 2:44 PM on July 31, 2002

Iraq: Why Not Do Nothing?
posted by muckster at 5:43 PM on July 31, 2002

Remember, the President cannot send the nation to war, only the Congress.

Not since the War Powers Act. The Prez can send the troops off anywhere in the world for 60 days (though I thought it was 90 for some reason). Within 48 hours of any action he has to make a nice little report explaining why he's sent the Marines, and 60 days after that report he has to end that action or get Congressional approval for a declaration of war. Of course, after 60 days he's probably put Congress between a rock and a hard place, and it would be militarily or politically dangerous for the troops to just up and leave.

Can't every citizen (MeFi luminary or not) influence foreign policy?

In theory, maybe, but Theory is a couple miles down the road from Reality.
posted by insomnyuk at 5:51 PM on July 31, 2002