"What's your view on the subject? ...... a unilateral US invasion of Iraq".....
I'm going to read thames thoughts after I post my POV as I don't have the time to give a thoughtful or appropriately considered response today. I was quite active in AH today & I need to tend to some personal matters tonight.
There should not be any legitimate reason for the USA/Bush to make a unilateral invasion of Iraq.........
unless..........
Main Entry: uni·lat·er·al
Pronunciation: "yü-ni-'la-t&-r&l, -'la-tr&l
Function: adjective
Date: 1802
1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : ONE-SIDED c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party..........
4 : having only one side.............
If for some reason Britain & other countries stand aside & the US decides to take unilateral action.....
- it would be imperative that Bush have overwhelming Congressional approval first
AND
- Iraq will need to have clearly violated the original terms of the Gulf War cease fire (full & unfettered access anywhere in Iraq)
- or Saddam takes some type of aggressive action warranting unilateral action
- Iraq reverts to the same games that violated all 16 UN resolutions
- Iraq attacks Israel
- Iraq invades/attacks Kuwait & Saudi Arabia again
- Compelling evidence establishes that Iraq aids, harbors, trains, sponsors &/or funds terrorists.
FWIW, 60 Minutes did a segment showing that Israel now has a growing plethora of hard evidence......... obtained from the assault on Arafat's HQ (their CIA, FBI & Secret Police files)........ establishing that Iraq & Iran have sponsored terrorism against Israel via funding, supplying, training & directing the activities of Palestinian suicide squads. Those interviewed on 60 Minutes made quite a compelling case to support their allegations.
However, I am confident that given the above conditions, the USA will not be acting unilaterally. England & other countries will back us if the above occurs, obviating any unilateral invasion of Iraq by the USA.
I would have to give a hard listen to any other reason for a unilateral invasion of Iraq by the US & not much comes to mind that would justify unilateral action.
For now, I don't see Bush as a bloodthirsty hawk. I don't see this as some conspiracy to take control of Iraqi or Arab oil. It's not about big business/oil. IMVHO, the US/Bush wants to protect our/global economic interests.... the free flow of oil from that region...... no more no less.
I see this as Bush taking prudent steps to eradicate terrorist groups with a global reach. He is acting like a leader of a civilized country who has no choice but to stand up to an evil enemy that has no rules to constrain him......... an enemy so vile it's main tactic is to kill & maim countless thousands of innocent citizens in any way possible........ this enemy has no borders & often does the bidding of certain rogue governments....... with which they maintain a sinister, demented, albeit symbiotic relationship.
I fully agree that any country that aids, harbors, sponsors, funds, trains &/or directs terrorist activities should be subject to attack unless they completely eliminate all such terrorist activities. Terrorists should have no safe haven whatsoever in any civilized country under any circumstances.
Fool me once, shame on you......... fool me twice, shame on me.
That's my story & I'm sticking to it.
Ö¿Ö |
