Question to all the "aniti-war" people out there...

1) Bush is our president Saddam is not. We have more control over Bush than we do Saddam, hence more scrutiny.

2) Bush, and the United States are the most power person/country in the world. Other countries look to us for leadership so to speak and they know where we go, others will follow. Kinda like the theory that you criticize the CEO and not the lower level employees.

 

of course we are against war, and we think saddam is a verry dangerous man.but Bush is the leader of the strongest country in the world.he can destroy the world if he wants, sadam can do nothing.if there will be a war, it will be in iraq not in the usa because saddam can't get there with his army.the most people are against bush on this, is because he is gonna attack iraq. and i'm against this because there already is a anti-american feeling in the muslim country, if the USA will attack iraq also the muslim world wil think bush is trying to get rid of the islamic faith.ad than there wil be a Jihad (atleast that is what i'm afraid of.and i'm getting the feeling Bush wants War.

 

I realized codell summed up my post. As for Europe, you should probably ask a European. I think that many of them simply do not agree with the US's policy towards Iraq. Hell, there are entire governments in Europe who don't like Bush or agree with his administration's policies towards Iraq.

Fact is, there are many in this country and around the world who don't agree. Like it or not, that is just the way it is.

 

Saddam should obey the rules of the treaty that he signed at the end of the Gulf War. We won, he lost, those were the terms. If he breaks those rules, then the treaty is null and void, and we take measures.

But dont try to sell me on the "Saddam and Bin Laden are allies" crap. Bin Laden is about THE CAUSE. He's a religious nutcase. Saddam is about MONEY AND POWER. He could give a rats ass about Islam. Nor do I buy the "Saddam will attack the US" theory. This is a guy who has one thing going for him: his power in Iraq. If he attacked the US, he would be blown halfway to Tibet. His best interests lie in keeping the status quo, thumping his chest, and caving in to UN demands only after he is able to save some face. The CIA's report on Iraq stated this, and our Pres blew it off.

I stand behind Bush enforcing the treaty. If Saddam develops a nuke, then he gets what he deserves. Waste him. Just dont try to make Saddam the new Public Enemy #1 just because we cant find Bin Laden. Its apples and oranges.

 

that is also what i thought when i heard al that crap about bin laden and saddam are working togheter,( in holland they even said that the murderer of Pim Fortuijn word for bin ladan).

 

Speaking as a Briton, Bush has a serious image problem over here. He is almost universally regarded as not very bright, and moreover a US president who seems obssessed with playing to political opinion in his country (not that there's anything wrong with that, but the perception of Clinton here was of a president who saw the global picture). The whole Kyoto treaty episode portrayed Bush in a bad light in this country.

I think that there are plenty of people who see Bush's interest in Saddam as "sabre-rattling", to assert the strength of his administration. After all, Saddam has been in contravention of UN resolutions for a considerable time now, but Bush interest only seems to have focused on him after the lack of success with getting to Bin Laden.

That's my whole take on the subject anyway.

 

Bush's approach to the regime change in Iraq, lacked diplomacy. Bush told the rest of the world that he would unilaterally attack Iraq, with or without consultation, consensus, or support from other nations. In particular, the lack of diplomacy was very disrespectful to our NATO allies.

The Bush Admin appeared to make the decision to attack Iraq and then struggled to come with acceptable jusitifcations (e.g. those poor Kurds, WMD, the War on Terrorism (tm), Saddam is a bad guy, UN Security Council violations, ad nauseum). None of these jusitfications for war stood under scrutiny. This further gave the impression that the US did not need to be publicly forthright with their justifications to make war on Iraq.

The absense of a tenable end game to the Iraqi regime change also troubles the international community. In particular, the Bush Admin does not appear to be concerned with the long term consequences of a war on Iraq. The countries closer in proximity to Iraq are very concerned about the business end of these consequences.

Why not protest Saddam? Between the previous UN WMD inspection regime, the embargo, and the no-fly zones, Saddam has become much less of a military threat to the region.

 

I wanted to add to the great reasons given already. I have a problem with the selective enforcement of UN resolutions in regards to Iraq and Israel. We're primed for war against Iraq however Israel has violated many many more resolutions than Iraq and we do nothing to force their compliance and in fact use our position on the security council to protect Israel from UN action. I also have a problem with the idea that we want freedom so badly for the Iraqui people when our best ally in the region is an oppressive Saudi regime that funds a version of Islam that is comparable to a Jim Jones/David Koresh type of radicalism. Saudi Arabia is the biggest problem in this area, not Iraq.

 

You make some good points...but just one sidenote. I think we have clammored for action against Iraq because the resolutions were the terms of peace in 1991. They have violated both UN resolutions and the terms of the cease fire. To me...it makes sense to enforce it.

As to Israel...I would like to see pressure brought to bear to comply with UN resolutions. However...the UN doesn't exactly have the best track record in enforcing their resolutions. For reasons of political expediency NO politician in the US is going to clammor for the UN to enforce the resolutions against Israel.