I expect bombs to be dropping over Baghdad in the next few hours and once that hammer drops I will not be commenting on things concerning Iraq as far as whether or not I am supporting this action. Under war conditions I will always be in support of actions that will result in as few of my fellow citizens being killed as possible. I will also be in support of any actions that will result in as few enemy casualties as possible. The only way I see that being done is by the use of an overwhelming force applied both quickly and violently.
I believe that all this could have been avoide about a year ago. I don’t believe that it is necessary for our country to disarm Iraq but I do believe that once we talked the UN into demanding that Iraq disarm we no longer had a choice to accept anything but cooperation and disarmement from Iraq. Once an ultimatum is given I believe that it must be followed through on or one’s credibility suffers.
Credibility is important to me. The US’s credibility has suffered too much in the past. We haven’t lived up to commitments that we have made and we’ve made too many deals to support corrupt and abusive regimes in return for their support of our policy. We can’t continue doing this and we can’t allow our past indescretions to prevent us from being the nation the rest of the world expects us to be. I want us wearing the white hat again and the only way I see that happening is by following through with our commitments. The part about not supporting corrupt and abusive regimes is a little more difficult for the simple reason that the terms corrupt and abusive are so subjective but we have to watch the company we keep.
I also believe this whole war could have been avoided had France not been so adamant about not allowing a credible threat of "serious reprecussions" to exist. As long as France was threatening to not allow military force against Iraq then there was no reason for Iraq to cooperate with being disarmed. I know Russia and China was taking a similar stand but it’s France’s position, a western country, that gave Iraq hope of keeping their weapons. France’s method of calling for peace is going to cause a lot of blood to flow.
Most of all, I lay the blame for this war on Saddam Hussein. This man has no love for his country. He is willing to sacrifice the citizens of his country just to maintain power there. The man is a thug and a true danger to the rest of the world as long as he remains in power. I know these same allegations have been leveled against G.W. Bush but at least he can be removed from power if he oversteps what his people will accept at the next election, Hussein will stay in power as long as he can hold it.
I am not a G.W. Bush fan. I was very disappointed with the choices I had during the last election and I’m not happy with the way that Bush’s cabinet is using terrorism to whittle away at personal freedoms in this country. Still, I’m convinced that had Gore won the election things would be just as bad on the domestic front and possibly worse in the international arena. However, now that we are where we are I’m supportive of Bush’s actions. I’m suspect of his motivations. I’d love to believe that this is about ridding the region of an abusive despot but I’m not kidding myself. This is about regional stability, something that I don’t believe that this war will result in.
So that’s where I stand. I’ll go quite on opinions concerning Iraq for now, after this is all over I’ll probably start talking again but for now just consider anything that our military does to end the war quickly and with as little loss of life, on both sides, as possible to be alright by me.
Let’s get it on.
It’s pretty clear that Americans want to know where we stand with the rest of the world in regards to our invasion of Iraq. Its also apparent that once know we don’t really care where it is we stand as long as everyone else on the UN Security Council takes a stand themselves. A huge majority of Americans (78%) would support a war against Iraq with UN approval. A clear majority (54%) would support such military action should the United Nations object to that action. A clear minority (47%) would support such action without a resolution presented to the UN. This is all according to a Gallup Poll conducted March 14-15.
As has been the case throughout recent months, support for military action against Iraq is contingent on what happens in the United Nations, as evidenced by the following results from the weekend poll:
- Seventy-eight percent of Americans say they would favor invading Iraq if the United Nations passes a new resolution that sets specific conditions for Iraq to disarm, and just 19% would be opposed under these circumstances.
- If such a resolution were submitted, but the United Nations rejected it, 54% of Americans would favor military action and 43% would oppose it.
- If the United States decides not to offer any new resolutions on Iraq and goes forward with military action without a new U.N. vote at all, half of Americans would oppose an invasion of Iraq, while 47% would be in favor.
Clearly, support would be greater if the United Nations signs off on military action against Iraq, but a majority of Americans still say they favor it if the United Nations does not do so. Only in the case in which the United States essentially decides to bypass the United Nations does less than a majority (47%) favor military action. However, that option is a distinct possibility given the inability to find Security Council support for a tougher resolution on Iraq.
Never let it be said that G.W. Bush operates his administration based on polls.
I understand why the US/UK/Spain alliance has chosen to not pursue further UN support. If they pursue it and don’t get it then International law says that military action is illegal. If they don’t bother to seek permission then the UN and and their International Court does not have any jurisdiction. Still, I’m with the majority of people who wanted to see the US force the UN’s hand in this matter.