I don't understand what Congress is trying to do by announcing that the United States will not attack Iraq until 2003.
Never mind if this is right or wrong for a moment and tell me if I'm missing something. I'm sure Sadam is preparing for the Mother of All Battles - Part Deux, but is war something that our leaders should talk about like the launch of any other federal program?
It almost sounds like this military action is being trivialized as just another Congressional Bill.
At what happened to the element of surprise? We have the fastest mobilized military machine in the world so why tip the future enemy that we're planning on visiting the Middle East sometime after New Years Day.
Crazy.
I don't believe that war, or any military action, should be invoked as a knee jerk response but I'm not comfortable with our political leaders talking about the establishment of Little America in the Middle East as just something to pencil in sometime in '03.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
What makes the grandstanding about the pending war with Iraq even more ironic is that the same administration has gone to great lengths to silence and control other, more trivial press. I mean, "Holy disclosure, Batman!", that sniveling punk Fleischer was cleaning up what were to be verbatim transcripts of the President's speeches after the stenographers had delivered the documents to the White House. It seems that some reports are too accurate for print, but you just can't get war related ballyhoo to print fast enough.
Uhm, why are the US planning on attacking Iraq at all? I mean, since it obviously needn't be done until sometime 2003, why attack at all?
Like you said, they've reduced war and all its consequences to be handled as just another bill..
God bless..
I would like to believe that Sadam is indeed a person who would seek to do harm to as many people as possible through means of terrorism and/or armament of massive destruction.
But I can't ignore the little voice in my head that says it's both a family thing and a sore spot in the pride of US Armed Forces.
I hope I'm wrong.
I'm going to have to agree here. The US shouldn't arbitrarily attack Iraq because they *think* it might pose a threat someday. Any country poses a threat, some moreso than Iraq. Also, the US has WOMD's, biological weapons et al, who are they to say which country can't also have them? They are going to have to provide alot more proof than just a hunch before committing troops, especially since many still suffer from unknown illnesses incurred from "Desert Storm".
The UN passed the resolution the Presidant of the US is currently upholding. Isn't the real mistake that has brought about the dissension in the UN the fact that no specific time frame was included in that resolution? It seems to me that if specific dates had orignally been included in the resolution on the table regarding Iraq's "immediate disarmament", there would not be such dissension as we see right now. The issue is not whether military force should ever be used against Iraq, the question in the hearts of ALL peoples on both sides of the issue is whether or military force should be excerised right NOW.