August 20, 2002

7:34 PM

Iraq's Aziz Says U.S. Attack Would FailThis is a news story? What is the Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz supposed to say? "W. has been right all along, Saddam is a tyrant. We need to get him out. Even Saddam agrees he has gone to far." or "Now that you mention it, our military is a mess, the stuff we have bought is junk and your tanks will rip it to shreds."
posted by Coop (14 comments total)

Wow, now people are dismissing their own posts. Here are nine crucial questions about Iraq.
posted by muckster at 7:42 PM on August 20, 2002

Good link muckster. Two of those points will depend largely on the methods the US decide to use in overthrowing Saddam.

The Army

Is the United States prepared to accept significant losses of American lives--a strong possibility in the projected intense ground fighting around Baghdad and other urban areas?

The Airforce

Is the United States prepared to inflict heavy losses on Iraq's civilian population if, as expected, Saddam concentrates his military assets in urban areas? Would this not make the United States a moral pariah in the eyes of much of the world?
posted by Stuart_R at 8:00 PM on August 20, 2002

Didn't the Taliban say they would win too?

Of course, another Saudi is accused of being a terrorist. So logically, the answer is to invade Iraq.

All this on the heels of news that the U.S. military (Blue forces) supposedly successfully won 3 weeks of simulated war games testing operations in the Persian Gulf. Although ex-General Van Riper (commander of the enemy Red forces) says the whole thing was rigged. The big game cost $250 million.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:02 PM on August 20, 2002

U.S. companies sold Iraq the ingredients to make the weapons of mass destruction that "justify" a US invasion. This article is over 4 years old, but no one seems to be mentioning how Iraq got their weaponry.
posted by michaelonfs at 8:10 PM on August 20, 2002

I'd be far more concerned about actions by Russia, France, and to some degree China in regards to Iraqi weaponry and technology. The U.S. is somewhat guilty also, but not on par with the others by any means.
posted by rudyfink at 9:54 PM on August 20, 2002

Coop: What is the Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz supposed to say? "W. has been right all along, Saddam is a tyrant.

What is Ari Flescher supposed to say? Bush is eager to finish his father's work in the middle east, continue the powergrab, curtain civil liberties, and cut more sweet deals for his energy buddies.
posted by skallas at 10:14 PM on August 20, 2002

Friedman's latest column is another good one.

"When the Bush team insists that Saddam Hussein must be ousted to bring democracy to Iraq and the Arab world — but says nothing about democratizing Saudi Arabia or Egypt — people there notice. And it undercuts our support and credibility. To his credit, Mr. Bush has finally decided to withhold an aid increase to Egypt, in response to its jailing of Egypt's leading democracy advocate.

"'This will be a good move if it is the start of a more consistent application of shared values,' the Jordanian columnist Rami Khouri wrote the other day. In the meantime, many Arabs are wondering: Why is America pushing democracy only in Iraq? Maybe it's because America really doesn't care about democracy in the Arab world, but is just pursuing some naked interests in Iraq and using democracy as its cover."
posted by homunculus at 11:16 PM on August 20, 2002

In the meantime, many Arabs are wondering: Why is America pushing democracy only in Iraq?

Actually, I'd be questioning the premise of that supposition, given that Bush has been rather cagey about the idea of bringing democracy to Iraq, or, at least about what a post-Saddam Iraq might look like. All the talk is simply of 'regime change', which smacks of installing the 'mad, bad and evil Saddam' of 2020.
posted by riviera at 3:13 AM on August 21, 2002

Why is America pushing democracy only in Iraq?

I am not sure that the proper word for that region is actually "democracy".

Maybe "freedom from brutal tyranny" would be more accurate.

Let's take it one step at a time.
posted by hama7 at 6:45 AM on August 21, 2002

Get real, hama7. If we were interested in eliminating brutality, we'd start with the Saudis. Or how about our friends the Pakistanis? China, anyone? Then there's pretty much most of sub-Saharan Africa-- well, actually a good chunk of North Africa as well-- and a few good shining examples in Central and South America.

But these are our friends, so we like to look the other way.
posted by Cerebus at 7:17 AM on August 21, 2002

Well, Cerebus,

As I said, let's take it one step at a time.

But you can't deny the horrific hellishness of Hussein's regime.

The Saudis are ridiculous. I have posted numerous times about friggin' China, and the rest of the barbarian worlds might very well well have to sort things out for themselves.

The United States is pretty busy at the moment.

Sorry complaining world.
posted by hama7 at 7:26 AM on August 21, 2002

i caught representative Dennis Kucinich news conference about US Policy in Iraq yesterday on CSPAN - compelling presentation - you can say what you want about scott ritter - but the guys has balls that must clank when he walks - the former head of the weapons inspection team - and former US military man, makes a clear case that US policy twords Iraq is currently highjacked by war mongering nuts with their own agenda. powerful stuff.
posted by specialk420 at 9:16 AM on August 21, 2002

Does anybody really think that democracy in Iraq is part of the goal of the Bush Adminstration? Maybe I'm being cynical, but I don't think that 'install democratic government' is part of the definition of 'regime change'.
posted by djeo at 1:42 PM on August 21, 2002

more on the subject - the views/goals these men do not represent anyone i know..... why are they deciding national policy and usurping congressional war powers?
posted by specialk420 at 1:47 PM on August 21, 2002