perfidy

Have read and greatly appreciate the last couple of posts. That is they make me laugh. Shall we open up a debate on the coming war? Too bad, I'm firing the first shots. Metaphorically speaking of course. I have several objections to the coming war, or at the very least, things that make me very uncomfortable, and I will list them. 

Objection 1: Level of threat. Exactly what threat do Saddam Hussein and Iraq pose to the United States? As I understand it, the al Samoud missiles Hussein claims (yes, I'll certainly concede that it is a claim) he has been destroying have a maximum range of 93 miles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the United States about 4,000 miles from Iraq (give or take)? He's going to have to tweak those missiles somethin' fierce for them to reach the United States. 

Objection 2: What if this were us? Okay, there are geopolitical legal issues. Hussein has, in all likelihood, not abided by the UN resolutions President Bush, Ari Fleischer, and other government boyos have been touting as cause for war. But here's the thing. Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, but then doesn't the United States? I mean, what if, oh say, France, or possibly the Norwegians, said, "Hey Mr. Uncle Sam with your big hat and funny pants! You have weapons of mass destruction, and we want them destroyed or we will go to war!" Come on. Americans would laugh until they soiled themselves. We do have such weapons, including the "nucular" variety (I'm sorry but I just can't get past that). We have chemical and biological weapons. Maybe some, who would support this coming war, would respond, "Yes, but we never used them on anyone else." I beg to differ. Ask the Japanese about the use of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps this imaginary person would say, "Well that was a war, and Japan attacked us, but we never used chemical or biological weapons." Again, I beg to differ. Tear gas is a chemical weapon. It has been used on the American people by American government agencies, primarily local police, many times. It will probably be used on those who protest this war as well. 

Objection 3: Exit Strategy. Whatever comes of this, it will probably be bad news. The conquest and occupation of Iraq is going to cost a lot of money, and our economy is poor. The government is not in such great fiscal shape, thanks to the tax cuts President Bush and Congress have implemented. Granted, war has a way of stimulating economies, but we can't blow people up just to get McDonald's back in the black. If the United States removes Hussein, we could easily open the door to a much more anti-American government in Iraq than Hussein's. Perhaps the next government will actually attack the United States, not just Kuwait or the poor Kurds. 

Objection 4: What is this Iraqi terrorism connection of which you speak? I find it difficult to believe that these "links" between al Qaeda and Hussein's government actually exist. Perhaps Hussein has harbored al Qaeda fugitives, but I've got news. That might be true of the Republic of Ireland as well. If President Bush and his government wish to go to war with everyone who harbors, in any way, al Qaeda members, are U.S. marines going to invade Connemara? The clearest links between Hussein and any "terrorist" organization are found in Palestine. Isn't that more of an issue for Israel? 

Well there you are. I've got serious qualms about this war. I expect the fur starts to fly now. Johnny Two-Cents and Buckethead, thank you for the forum.