Register your opinion on Iraq

UN authorization is very problematic. Such countries as Russia and France that have interests of their own in Iraq possess right to impose veto in the Security Council. As far as I understand, even in Europe not all the countries are unanimous in their rejection of the war option, but France manages to suppress dissent in the EU ranks. It is impossible to permit Gaullists to decide for the U.S. administration.

Steissd,

Let me refine your remarks just a little bit by adding just one word.

Further

Resolution 1443 already provides all the authorization needed from the UN.

Some strategists within the Bush Administration are urging the President to look for an "exit strategy" on Iraq, warning the tough stance on war with the Arab country has left the country in a "no win" situation. "At this point, the United States and Britain does not have the support for passage of a second UN resolution," admits a White House aide.

In addition, Republican leaders in both the House and Senate are telling the Presidently privately that he is losing support in Congress for a "go it alone war" against Iraq.

"The President's war plans are in trouble, there's no doubt about that," says an advisor to House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert. "Some Republican members want a vote on military action and some of those say they would, at this point, vote against such action."

Some White House advisors are urging the President to consider complying with the UN position or to look for other "face saving" ways to avoid war with Iraq.

President Bush, however, is reported to be "hanging tough" on plans to invade Iraq, even though his closest advisors tell him such a move could be "disasterous" politically.

"The President has backed himself and the nation into a corner in a no win situation," says political scientist George Harleigh. "World opinion is against him. Public opinion polls show support eroding among Americans."

Republican campaign strategist Vern Wilson says he is advising his clients to "put some distance between themselves and the President" on war with Iraq.

"When you have former military leaders questioning the wisdom of war, then you have Vietnam and Gulf War veterans marching against the war, when you have Republicans in Congress questioning the President's judgment, it tells me we could have a problem," Wilson said.

Capitol Hill Blue

FOR, if we have some international involvement. NATO's is only relevant in the event of an attack on Turkey. No longer convinced of the relevance of the UN on anything.

The adminstration has a good chance of a new resolution without the wording of going to war. I would lose a lot of confidence if they back off of a military enforcement regardless of the outcome. Kind of like being stuck between a rock and a hard place, huh.

All in all a pretty even-handed and reasonable commentary. Glad you shared it.

I do take issue--but only a small amount--with the notion that we or Bush would need to "save face" if we decide not to go to war. I think that if we choose not to attack, the threat of attack has in itself achieved much that no other tack previously achieved. I do not share the view that we lose anything if we do not follow through, nor would I want our government factoring whether or not they must "save face" into the equation. (I will however admit that I may be being more than a little naive here, but who isn't from time to time?)

Another polling option might be "Against, given the current circumstances". I do not currently support open war with Iraq under any of the scenarios you provide but nor am I opposed to it under any circumstances.

As for the circumstances under which I would support the war, these would need to include:

1. Irrefutable evidence of weapons of mass destruction (as opposed to weaponry for defense, which any country should be able to maintain),
2. Full NATO support, including a pre-determined, pre-approved plan for managing the country, establishing a new government and maintaining peace after the hostilities are concluded,
3. A congressional declaration of war approved by at least 2/3s of the House and the Senate,
4. The congressional passage and presidential approval of a series of tax increases that will offset the cost of the war, the current military buildup and the subsequent peacekeeping effort; said taxes would need to remain in place until the associated national debt is eliminated. Assuming a trillion $$ effort (no exaggeration, I think) and additional debt costs, this effort will cost each American in excess of $10,000 per person. Someone has to pay for it.

Other criteria I would like to meet but can live without:

1. The First Twins in boot camp in preparation for joining our armed forces on the front lines
2. An open admission that once we kill or exile Sadam, we plan to reward ourselves by stealing Iraq's oil reserves to feed our insatiable appetite for fossil fuels
3. Donald Rumsfeld's head on a stick on the White House lawn

Opinion On Iraq
I agree with Senator Feinstein's and Senator Byrds Resolution S. 28

* The U.N. weapons inspectors should be given sufficient time to carry out their work, and collect the data, necessary to thoroughly assess the level of compliance by Iraq;

* The United States and other member nations of the Security Council should work together to exhaust all peaceful and diplomatic means for disarming Iraq before launching an invasion;

* International emissaries should be given adequate time to pursue ways to
persuade Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq voluntarily and avert war; and

* The United States should seek a specific authorization for the use of force from the U.N. Security Council.



The San Francisco Chronicle published a column about the Iraq issue
written by Senator Feinstein - 2/14/03

http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Speeches/iraq21403.htm

If I were American, I'd be voting with Tim King on this.

TIM KING HAS MY VOTE!
I vote for Tim King - er, "with" Tim King.

Is this a cause worth dying for? Why is no one talking "body bags"? Using the U.S. Dept. of Defense figures for some of the recent conflicts, the body count should be about 1625 per 250,000. That doesn't include the maimed and wounded. People die in wars - even the "good guys." (We've had the experience and live with it every day.) There is consolation in knowing it wasn't in vain, and that most of your country and/or the world were in agreement. Otherwise, none of us would be free today as we know it. Those facts do help. But a pre-emptive strike in this instance? More proof for the necessity is needed.[/color]

I too agree with tim king's nuance option of "against, under current circumstances".

Waging a so called "pre-emptive" (preventative in reality) war with such dubious justifications will only vindicate and galvanize the Bin-Ladins of the world.

I'm with W. C. Fields about Philadelphia, and I feel the same way about Tim King (is that really him in the picture?!?!?)'s position.

150 American soldiers died in the first Gulf War.

The reason no one is talking about body bags is because the number of people killed in a war is the same classification as the cost of a war.

Rumsfeld called it "unknowable".

But please, don't let that stop you folks from ruminating about the possibility that the body count will be exponentially higher this time.

Obviously not very many math majors here.

I might ask you the very same question, maxsdadeo, though I'll assume your avatar is more likely to be Max. But since you asked, yes it is.

Uh, no, tisn't max.

My prayer for the entire planet is peace.

I take a harder line than Tim King, but would prefer his major conditions be met over the present circumstances.

I'm with Tim on this one as well!

I'm not willing to swallow that Bush Sr. didn't go in Baghdad because the resolution didn't authorize him to -- he was afraid of the loss of life on our side even if he wasn't afraid of the loss of life on their side. My comment about going through with the military action is the irony of the situation. We'll have to wait for history to judge whether this adminstration goes ahead with military action knowing that it wasn't necessary. I'm not consulting any psychics about that.