If we (the United States) pull totally out of the Middle East and ended our relationship with Israel, most of our "enemies" in the Middle East would go away. Osama has stated over and over that he hates us because we have "taken over" (in his view) their land and that we support the Israelis. The problem is that if we pulled out of the Middle East, Saddam would do his best to take it over. Granted, I do understand, to a point, that most of the Middle East does not appreciate battleships in the Persian Gulf, as we wouldn't want some other countries ships in our harbors.

Someone stated that he didn't understand why Saddam was a problem all of a sudden after 9/11. He has always been a problem, it's just that a lot of his progress was ruined when he invaded Kuwait, and the UN came in and took out a lot of his operations. After when he "agreed" to the UN sanctions, I don't think he EVER let anyone go into his palaces. And then he finally "kicked" all the inspectors out by not giving full compliance. So what do you think he has been doing that whole time. He has been relentlessly building WoMD. And would they directly affect us by putting people in harm? No, but he would use those weapons against his neighbors for an economic stranglehold forcing the price of oil up for everyone. We (the world) cannot allow anyone to control economies with terror treatments and hostile takeovers of other people's land.

Everyone down plays the importance of the oil issue. That it shouldn't be a big deal. But it is. Good economic future is important for everyone. And allowing a madman to control a basic necessity the world needs is unallowable. Granted, their are other sources of oil in the world (Siberia, Alaska are just two locations) but the most attainable and what keeps certain middle eastern coutries thriving is the oil that they can sell to other nations (the US probably being the biggest customer).

This is obviously a complicated issue. But I do also applaud the moderators in allowing for this thread to keep moving. I have to go and investigate this issue more, as I hope everyone who has taken part in this thread also does.

Oh, and about that rumor that a US general would take over if we actually got Saddam out of power could NEVER happen. NOBODY in the Middle East would go for this. It would have to be the same type of thing that was done in Afghanistan.

One last point, I think everyone should take the time and try to understand why we are hated. It's important to understand for everything that we give to other countries, why people perceive us to be evil. Is it a lack of understanding? Somewhat, but I think it goes deeper then that.

ERIK

 

Erik,

I have a feeling that it was one of my comments that you were referring to about Saddam suddenly being such a problem after 9-11. With respect to that, and your comments on the subject, I actually basically agree with you. Saddam has been trying everything he can to attempt to build WoMD since he kicked the inspectors out. However, evidence has not shown that he currently possesses enough materials to do so, nor does he appear to have a method of transportation for such a weapon.

Saddam does not currently appear to have a significant terror stranglehold in the Middle East and I read somewhere that the UN is currently controlling approximately 85% of Iraq's income from oil, so he is not likely to be in a position to exert that sort of control in the region for quite some time even if we were simply to maintain the status quo.

I won't pretend to understand all of the reasons that people around the world do not like the US, but I would venture to guess that our threats of unilateral action to defend US "interests" against the wishes and without the support of the international community is a significant contributing factor.

We give a lot to other countries around the world...allies and enemies alike. We have propped up dictatorships when it suited us and dismantled others when they crossed us or no longer fit into our foreign policy.

I'm not saying something doesn't need to be done. I'm saying that we need to evaluate the consequences, have a plan and have the committed support of our allies, Congress and the American people before we shed the blood of our service men and women.

 

Some may be offended by this statement, but another BIG reason the U.S. is hated is our arrogance. We are the world's only super power now and we seem to flaunt it. It has been said that if it wasn't for us the world would have been a different place. While this may be true, it couldn't have happened without support from other countries. We seem to throw up in other countries faces that we give them financial support, so they better listen to us. This backe fired on us when Afghanistan was fighting the Russians. We supported the Taliban, then, when the fighting ended, we walked out on Afghanistan. This was one thing that ticked off bin Laden.

 

Brantshali,

Good points. Especially your points about protecting our "interests". A lot of politicians use that word, but I have a feeling if you asked them to expand on that topic, they'd be a bit tongue tied, or just give you some lingo on what they are to themselves.

I'm not sure what kind of evidence we would have on how far along Saddam is on the WoMD front. He's obviously not going to keep it out in the open, and no one has really been in his country to check out his dealings since 1999. I'm sure we have some intelligence, and either GWB has this evidence in hand, or is using this possible war for an economical upturn in our own economy. I really hope it's because Saddam is a threat, and not for our economy.

A big question for me is, Who are our allies? Are we talking Britain and the Saudis? Every country part of the UN? I just don't know how you EVER could get unilateral support for a war without a major catastrophic even occuring first. I think a lot of the problem is that most countries never want to be proactive. We have to wait for something to happen, and then people rally around. I don't think waiting for Saddam to build his power is worthwhile. But I'm hardly an expert on this topic, so I could be getting caught up on the hoopla. I think my thing is that I'm extremely confident that Iraq backs major amounts of terrorism throughout the world. I don't have substantial evidence, it's just a belief. And I don't want to wait around for another 9/11.

I do agree though that this war has to be well planned, consequences thought through, and plans for the aftermath have to be developed. I do hope war can be avoided, I just don't know how that will occur.

ERIK

 

Dario, I completely agree. Our foreign policy has been a mixture of arrogance and inconsistency. I'm not pointing the finger at any particular administration or instance, but rather throughout our history as a world power.

We profess to be doing what we feel is best for the world despite the objections of the other impacted countries.

The fault is our nature as a country...we lack the long-term perspective needed for effective foreign policy. The problem is that a long-term perspective is not particularly effective in the political environment in the US.

 

Erick,

The evidence is a mixture of current intelligence as well as calculations based on his earlier rates of acquisition of such material.

I don't propose that we need to have 100% support of the UN or even necessarily a majority. I just propose that maybe we need more than our good friends in the UK and a couple others. We need to work to rally support possibly with our NATO allies as well as working to gain support from other countries in the Middle East.

I, too, don't think we need to wait until we are attacked. I do, however, think we need a little more evidence and a little more support before we risk further alienating what I believe we all agree is a critical region to US "interests."

Again, to me it is not a question of whether or not something should be done. Something SHOULD be done. My questions are what should we do and when is the most advantageous time to do it...?

 

Hmm just saw this in a news article about today's Iraqi referendum & Saddam's hometown:

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2002Oct15.html)

Note the italicized & bold phrase -- can anyone explain this, since it seems to be a direct contradiction to what I've heard so far???

 

No it's not. They've agreed to let the weapons inspectors back in. What you need to understand is that when the weapons inspectors were there before Iraq limited what they could inspect. Specifically, they have a number of "Presidential Palaces" that were off limits. These palaces are huge complexes with underground facilities that easily could house WOMD. Also, the inspectors were forced to give notice when they inspected certain locations. This gave Iraq notice of when inspections were going to occur and they could move illegal equipment. These requirements made the inspectors useless. The only reason they agreed to allow them back in (they left in 1998) was because of our threat of military action. This time around, we've insisted that the weapons inspectors be given free reign to inspect anywhere they want, without notice, including the Presidential Palaces. If they don't we've said we may take action. This seems like a reaonable stance to me. We've given Iraq plenty of opportunities to avoid war. They just need to do what they promised they would do when they surrendered. Thus far they've made it pretty clear that they're hiding things.

 

It seems that alot of people in Iraq think the US just doesn't like Saddam, for no specific reason. They must think the whole world is their sandbox, and we are just bullies in the playground. Why should we care if their government encourages terrorists to kill our citizens? Please. The more I hear about how the Iraqi citizen supports their leader despite the atrocities he commits and the wars he starts, the more I wonder if Saddam isn't just one of a whole country of like-minded souls. I sure hope the majority of Iraqis are aware that the reason bombs might get dropped on their towns is because of the leader they voted for.

 

Uh, hello. Saddam doesn't let anything but his gov't propoganda get out to his people. They don't know that their life could be better. All they see is what he let's them see, which is pictures of us bombing them without the context of why we might be bombing them. Let's be serious here. Saddam has used WOMD on his OWN people. They're either mad or misinformed to support him. You figure it out.