How long will it take?

There will be no war with Iraq until weapons inspectors return & are denied access to sites or are refused material information. Only when/if that happens will any war take place & it will take place once again with a broad support from US allies. US & UK will not go alone into Iraq if they go at all. Look for inspectors to be denied as a clue that war is emminent.

PS: Not even all of the leading generals in the US armed services want to see a war with Iraq & you shouldn't either. This time we intend on regime change which means urban fighting against a hostile population of potentially millions of people. Introducing the possibility of chemical & nuclear weapons on US troops, plus whatever else Al-Quida & the likes can stir up in other arab nations to oppose the US in the region. Possible regional conflict stirring up against Israel & civil unrest/revolution in neighboring arab states. The potential for thousands if not millions of people being killed is very real & should serve as warning that diplomatic measures in this area should come first before any military ones.

 

Diplomatic efforts have been exuasted, and there is no need to let Iraq pussy foot around until they are a bigger threat then they already are.

and as far as MTX talking about attacking their missle sites in the no fly zone, I have read those articles as well. My fav was the leaflet drop they did last week that showed dead Iraqi soldiers and a blown up missle base and read "If you shoot at us, you will be next"

 

Unfortunately the rest of the world doesn't agree with that statement, and is a belief held only by some US leadership, and not all. Even the UK, our *only* current ally who would go to war with Iraq at this time, do not agree. It was their idea in fact to take the arguement to the UN, which is where it is being debated currently.

Considering upwards of 65% or more of US people in polls do not support any war with Iraq without US allies involved, war is highly unlikely. Not only unlikely but also political suicide for GWB. The only way any allies besides UK will become involved in a war with Iraq are after the return of weapons inspectors & after those inspectors are denied access to the information they are seeking.

Thus, diplomatic efforts are the only means currently available.

 

Are you a Democrat

Where in this graph do 65% of the U.S. population oppose War in Iraq?

source http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/iraq.poll/index.html


You might also want to do a bit more research into who is for and against it concidering the UK, Spain, and Italy all support the U.S. call for war in Iraq.

 

Perhaps if any of your graphs addressed my statement you would see. My statement was this:

None of your graphs represent the support of war if there are no US allies involved. However, a poll with this specific question was taken recently & using your own source (CNN) the article is here:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/utley/index.html

and to quote:

^ Which wasn't the only poll, there were 2 others around the same time both of which were 'web polls' where you vote & see results. Each of them had the same results, roughly 65% voting no to go to war without support of allies. So my statement was correct based on factual data. The majority of people in this country do NOT want to go to war vs. Iraq if we are alone and working without allies. Why?

The bill for the US acting alone would be over $80 billion. That is just the war alone. That does nothing to address the 'peacekeeping' or nation building that would have to follow. Thus, our economy takes a full hit and our entire budget surplus is gone. Not to mention our current recession and people already can't find jobs as it is. Then you have to factor in the possibility of 1000's of casualties on our side if not 100,000's or more. If GWB is right & saddam is loaded down with all these WMD why wouldn't he use them on our troops in Bagdhad? People don't want to pay 80 billion & lose possible thousands of lives for a war if it can be avoided & I don't blame them. For factual backup of all this data go here:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/asia/10/07/hk.ingwar/index.html

I would also like to point out that just because one countries leader goes out & says he wants to attack Iraq, this in no way represents the opinion of the entire country or even a majority of that country. Let's take the UK, for example, where Blair is steadfast in support of the bush policy. The populace of that country, however, is not:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/25/uk.iraq.poll/index.html

Thus I put very little faith in the words of UK, Spain or Italy considering the majority of their populace I guarantee do not support the war on Iraq. Neither has ANY of the nations you mentioned pledged any form of military support AT ALL. Just because the leadership says ok war with Iraq is great there is no guarantee that the people in those countries & the 'congresses' of those nations would allow military force to go along. Included the UK which is quite vocal about it's US support. They have not yet voted to actually send military support with the US to any Iraq war. That's because the issue is currently tied up in British parlaiment without a majority either for or against the issue. Thus our only 'ally' that bush says 'will send troops with us' at the current time isn't even in the bag. Blair is not likely to act alone on this matter without a vote of parlaiment to back him up.

Now of course we are just sitting here in an entirely US owned publication with our data (CNN). But if you expand your reading to other news outlets as well with a more global scope.. Such as the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/default.stm .. You will notice a far less enthusiastic tone on the prospects of an Iraq war. Even further than that but if you read what posters from around the world have to say:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2308795.stm

You will see quite a different picture emerge. It doesn't matter if I am a Democrat or a Republican, I consider myself a member of the world & the global community. As such, I think the USA completely ignoring the progress of the past 60 years of history (Globalization, integrated global community, UN) etc & attacking a country unilaterraly without international support would be a mistake.

 

PS:

If you look at the poll on the BBC talking point page that I linked above you see the majority of those in the UK do not support troops sent to Iraq. Despite what Blair says, the UK would most likely NOT be sending in troops with the USA at this time & we would be completely alone against Iraq.

Thus we NEED to send the inspectors in. If Saddam screws up this time than I will fully support a war against Iraq. But I think many other people in the world would back it as well, and that's what the US needs before it moves forward.

 

Exactly.

Only, I think a many more attempts to rocket the Israeli's will be made, in a mad hope of drawing any neighboring arabic country dumb enough to do so into the conflict.

Israel could, and does have the means to wipe Iraq off the map, at any time.

But that would harm world opinion of them,
and for some odd reason, that seems almost as important as survival to a lot of Israel's still...

after all, they havent exterminated the Palestinians yet.

 

Well that in itself is the bigest risk in going to war with Iraq.

They will of course first try to draw in the Israels, who have already stated that if they are attacked this time they will respond with force. Israel attacking an Arab nation instantly turns a politcal conflict into a Religous one between Jews & Muslums.


If that happens Hamma get's his wish:

For 10 years Iraq has not adheared to UN resolutions, and Bush's most powerful point on the matter was "Will the UN be taken seriously because they are backed by force, or are UN resolutions to be ignored without consequences?"

This is a defining moment in UN history, and if they do not back sanctions with force then they will have negated any power they thought they had.

 

This situation could very easily become the spark for a new large scale war, but one which would likely result in the use of chemical and biological weapons. That reason alone is enough for me to be against action here. I am curious what those graphs would read like if the numbers cited were "50,000 americans dead."