JetScootr's Journal: War With Iraq, World War III

{Begin political RANT:}
Someone commented to me: "I wonder what he's done that so bad really" about Saddam Hussein.
First, on a side note - a pet peeve about the way the US is treated in foreign affairs. We're blamed for screwing up Vietnam - but the Chinese invaded first (even before the French, then again after!). We're blamed in part for the mess in Afghanistan - but the Russians invaded first. We supplied weapons to the natives to throw out the invader. But somehow, now, we're responsible for how they screwed up their country once they got it back. We're blamed when we get involved. We're blamed when we don't get involved.
And now, finally, because we let them express their hatred their way, and we left them alone, 3000 Americans are dead. Well, if the problem won't stay over there, if it comes over here, we'll go and solve it - our way.

End side note, now on to the main Rant:
I am not advocating war against Iraq. IMHO, there's probably no way to do it that won't lead to WW III. But I'm also not sure that NOT going to war will avoid a regional war. The Arab countries are full of hate towards us - and realistically, most of it is based on THEIR unwillingness to live in peace with culturally diverse indigents. It's not the Jews fault - The Taliban destroyed Buddhist shrines in Afghanistan too.

And So-Damn-Insane is a particularly nasty example of this kind of character - He's psychotic by any rational standard. He has committed murder in front of witnesses for political reasons. He also had his own brother in law executed (also political). These events have been documented by the UN - hardly a US-friendly group when it comes to human rights issues.
What So-Damn-Insane has also done that is so bad:

• Invaded two neighboring countries (Iran and Kuwait) on trumped-up excuses.
• Attacked a third country (Israel) in order to expand his war against Kuwait into a wider regional conflict (with the US on the "bad" side).
• Very nearly attacked a fourth country (Saudi Arabia), also with provocation. I've seen the satellite photos that were declassified from late 1990. If they are to be believed, most of Iraq's forces in Kuwait, immediately after the invasion, were massed at the border to Saudi Arabia. It certainly appears US forces, as a deterrent, got there just in time.
• Used poison gas on the Iranians and on his own people.
• Assassinated many political and military leaders in his own country.
• Sponsored with money, facilities, equipment, land, transportation, logistics, and paper deniability a BUNCH of terrorists.
• Like the Saudi and Egyptian governments, he gives money to the families of suicide bombers. Not just a tithe to help console them - he makes them RICH (by the economic standards of the region).
• He has stated again and again his wish to destroy USA, and has encouraged in his speeches attacks on Americans worldwide.

The "Pearl Harbor" analogy to Sept 11 is very valid - those who attacked us were almost certainly supported by a soveriegn government bent on destroying Americans - and that is an act of war. In a very real sense, we are at war whether Congress declares war or not.
Evidence is slowly being made public that implicates Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. (Opinion: I suspect these last two countries were supporting the organizations responsible, but had no information as to the extent of the attacks that were planned. My guess is that Iraq is in it up to here.)

In short, the number of Americans that Saddam has killed is limited only by his ability to get at us without facing the ultimate reprisal. Which it looks like he may be facing pretty soon, anyway.

Another side note: Given that Congress has passed the War Powers act, and the executive branch has not challenged it in court. The president is currently considering something that would have been unspeakable before 9/11: He is considering the premeditated, preemptive overthrow of a sovereign nation using US military forces. If this does not require Congress to declare war, then the Constitution's clause that says only Congress may declare war is meaningless. If Congress does not either declare war or stop the war from happening, then Congress is derelict in its constitutional duty, and the duty self-imposed by the War Powers Act, in controlling the president's unlimited use of military force. A "resolution" won't do: Congress must support the Constitution and declare war, or enforce the Constitution and pass legislation or file a lawsuit and stop the war before it starts. What Congress appears to be gearing up to is fence-sitting by "supporting the president" but not actually declaring war. Yes, this is all moot to the situation now, but it allows a dangerous precedent to escalate - if Congress sits on the sidelines on this one, then Congress is admitting its has no teeth in limiting the president's use of force.

What's changed, not to put too fine a point on it, is Sept 11. If we don't go to war over this, we're just inviting everything from purse snatching to foreign invasion. We must act overwhelmingly because, to terrorists, negotiation is for the weak. "Negotiation is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until your hand finds a big enough rock." (I forget who said that). Violence is a language the terrorists DO understand.
Anti-US rhetoric has been used by totalitarian regimes ever since WW II - we've been blamed for everything that goes wrong around the world. True - US is no innocent, just by the fact of having the biggest economy. If you're an 800-lb gorilla, you're gonna step on toes no matter how careful you are. But the US hasn't had the time or resources to do everything bad we've been accused of by govt's like Cuba, Libya, etc. (One time, Kaddhafi said we might invade Arab countries because we wanted their high quality camel's milk, sand, and watermelons. Quite frankly, until he said that, I had never thought of camel's milk as a critical commodity. Maybe I'll have to try some and see what's it all about. Anyway, This was YEARS after we bombed his terrorist training camps.
See the exact text translated to English: Turkish Daily News) This is just one example how dictators blame the USA, or "the West" as a way of externalizing problems that are really self-inflicted.

I just pray that Dubya's as good a diplomat as his daddy was - and has a team of diplomats that are able to prevent Dubya's war from becoming a world war.
{End Political Rant}