Gallup Poll, Saddam, and other matters. (no US bashing!)

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy


So that's what that whole war on Tourism is about then.

Drat! Does this mean I can't come out at the end of the year?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants




Drat! Does this mean I can't come out at the end of the year?

No you can still come. Just leave your bombs at home.

We have tightened the visa process and everything else. Before people could supposedly just mail in their visa apps and basically just get them approved. Now (at least with Middle Eastern countries) a person has to go in person and supply a bunch of id. We need to do more of that. Maybe we should require ALL vistors to have background checks before entering the US.

[Comic Book Guy]

We have tightened the visa process and everything else. Before people could supposedly just mail in their visa apps and basically just get them approved. Now (at least with Middle Eastern countries) a person has to go in person and supply a bunch of id. We need to do more of that. Maybe we should require ALL vistors to have background checks before entering the US.

Theoretically potential terrorists could still slip through the net despite the methods described above.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy


Theoretically potential terrorists could still slip through the net despite the methods described above.

I know they could. There is nothing that can be done to stop someone that is determined. People wanted to sue the airlines - some people still want to over 9/11. I don't see what other actions the airlines could have done that would have been acceptable to the American people at the time. The terrorists carried box cutters- not guns, not bombes.

Some of the victims families insist that the Twin Towers should have stood and they want answers as to why they collapsed. They collapsed because two huge planes (that didn't exist at the time the TTs were built) loaded with jet fuel crashed into the middle of them. They claim the sprinkler system should have been better built. I don't know any pipes that could withstand 1500+ degrees. Or what sprinkler system, even if it did remain intact, could put out a fire of that magnitude.

We live in an unsafe world and there is no way to protect us from everything. We can not expect 100% safety. The best we can hope for is the minimize the risk as much as possible,

[afro-elf]

So that's what that whole war on Tourism is about then

LOL

[Sween]

The problem with terrorism is there is no cure. Should you not let anyone in the US because they are from the middle east? Of course you should not. Should you be stringent and check their background? yes of course. Will this stop people getting though the net? No never there is allways a way round the system.

Did the perpetrators of 9/11 have files no they appeared to be simple people going about there business. Terrorism is one of those things you can stop really.If i wanted to kill a lot of people it would not be hard at all i would have to do is find a gun or make a bomb (which is very easy). My friend little sister went to dumblane they know how easy it is to inflict huge suffering.

Back to Iraq Sadam may be mad infact is he mad i dont know. Hes a B****** allright and hes evils yes hes evil but with most dictators are they mad? Was Hitler mad? Sadam is loving this whole US problem because what every good evil dictators need is a enemy and who better than the strongest nation in the world. Hes just playing with the US im sure he would not want open conflict as he knows he would not win but hes more than happy to pi** you off every once in a while.

Should something be done? its a difficult one the US has a bad rep round there and i would hate to think that the Arabic countries would see Sadam as a marter much like im sure a lot of people see Bin Lardin thats the last thing they want.

Should the US remove a potential threat (even though personally i think he does not want a war just wants to flex his power occasionally) should the american people feel threatned? no you should not there may be a threat but its a minute little one and could easily be carried out by somone in your country as someone in the name of sadam. Would sadam openly encourage terrorism? no he knows what the conquences would be and hes more than happy playing dictator.

George Bush Jr has show hes worrior leader (hes been in the air force hasnt he?) and his mentality is see a problem take it out. Our leader Tony Blair is not the same hes a lawyer by trade (not a very good one though) and i would not fancy him as a leader if we were in a war. Ive a feeling Bush will take action as its his nature.

[jerseydevil]

It doesn't matter so much if Bush personally wants a war or not - if he doesn't get Congress or the American people to back him - he's not going to do anything. The President of the United States actually has limited Powers. His own cabinet has to be approved by congress. We do have a series of checks and balances that generally prevents one person from having supreme power and doing irrational things. I am still on the undecided column of the Iraq thing. I do think we need to take him out and I know that if something happens wear Iraq does support a major terrorist attack or something - people will be screaming "Why wasn't something done before this?". It'll be just like it was after 9/11 - everyone second guessing - even though there was absolutely no support to go after Al Qaeda or terrorist groups - especially if American military lives were put in danger.

I do agree that there is no cure for terrorism. It is impossible to please everyone in the world and there will always be the fantatics of any group. There are fanatics in chirstian religions who blow up abortion clinics, there are fanatics in the environmental movement and anti-globalization movements. Fanatics will always go to any lenght to get what they want - regardless of whether they are hurting or killing others. No matter what the US does in the Middle East - there will always be people and groups that hate us or hate the west in general.

Also - if anyone thinks that the people in the Middle East have only a problem with the US - you're seriously mistaken. We're just the largest target because we're the most visible. The US just represents the "West" and the immoral values in their eyes. I don't care about being called an infidel, I may be atheist - but I'm not blowing innocent people up. If they think killing is the way to get 72 virgins then I really feel sorry for them.

This was on World News Tonight last night -

Conditional Support: Prospect of High U.S. Casualties Dampens Support for Iraq War

In an ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, fewer than half of Americans say the Bush administration has a clear policy on Iraq, and many look to Congress to vet any plans for war. Indeed the public divides about evenly on whether Bush, or Congress, should have the final say.

While 69 percent do favor U.S. military action to force Saddam Hussein from power, that falls to 54 percent if U.S. allies oppose it. And while 57 percent support a U.S. invasion of Iraq with ground troops, that drops to 40 percent if it means heavy U.S. casualties.

The prospect of casualties is not always so daunting: Last fall two-thirds of Americans expressed a willingness to sustain high casualties in U.S. military action against groups or nations responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. The critical factor is a sense of threat, and on this the administration is halfway there: Seventy-nine percent of Americans do see Iraq as a threat. But clearly, fewer see it as a big enough threat to justify a high-casualty invasion.

....the public divides evenly on whether or not he (Bush) has a clear policy on Iraq: Forty-five percent say he does, but 42 percent think not. (In February 1998, amid rising tension over U.N. weapons inspections, 55 percent said Bill Clinton's policy on Iraq was clear.)

Today 75 percent of Americans say Bush should get authorization from Congress before going to war with Iraq. Probably of greater concern to the administration is the public's view on who should have the final decision: Forty-eight percent say it should be Bush, but about as many, 44 percent, say it should be Congress.

.........

Attacking Iraq to oust Saddam is favored by 76 percent of those who see him as a threat, compared to just 49 percent of those who don't. And it's favored by 84 percent of those who think Bush has a clear policy, compared to 59 percent of those who think not.

Similarly, support for a ground war falls from 62 percent of those who see Iraq as a threat to 44 percent of those who don't. And it declines even more steeply from 73 percent of those who think Bush's policy is clear to 43 percent of those who think not.

....women are less apt to favor attacking Iraq (though 63 percent still do so), and substantially less apt to favor invading it with ground troops (49 percent, compared to 65 percent of men). Older Americans, age 65 and up, are also less supportive of taking military action.

Political partisanship is strongest in views of whether Bush's policy is clear: Sixty-six percent of Republicans say it is, but this dives to 36 percent of independents and Democrats alike. Accordingly, 55 percent of Democrats, and 48 percent of independents, say Congress should have the final word. Just 28 percent of Republicans agree.

..........

This ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Aug. 7-11 among a random national sample of 1,023 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Fieldwork was conducted by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.

[Ben]

If Saddam had nothing to hide, then he would have no problems letting the inspectors back in. Clearly, he is building (or has already built) chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Analysts say he is only a few years away from being able to use nuclear weapons. Don't underestimate him - these weapons, even in small quantities, can cause massive damage.

Why give him the time to create these weapons? I'm sure he'd love to lay low until his weapons of mass destruction are ready.

I am a little wary of attacking him, though - Bush has made it very clear that this time, the end result would be Saddam's removal from power. Since Saddam knows that his demise is imminent, wouldn't he be likely to use everything in his arsenal against us to go out in a blaze of glory? I fear he would have no incentive to exercise restraint and merely fight back with conventional weapons, since he has nothing to lose.

The justifications used in a possible attack on Iraq could be made for numerous nations. Are we going to invade them all? There has been little to differentiate the terrorist support in Iraq from that of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan, Lybia, North Korea, Indonesia, China and others.

I agree that a number of nations are ripe for "regime change" in the name of global security, but since Iraq is such a pariah, it's probably one of the few places that the U.S. could invade without being subject to too much world outcry. Even the Arab nations, though, would actually like to see Saddam toppled - he's a threat to them as well.

George Bush Jr has show hes worrior leader (hes been in the air force hasnt he?) and his mentality is see a problem take it out.

Ha, not really. During Vietnam he was in some kind of reserve air group, and during the 2000 campaign, questions were raised suggesting that he might not have actually served all the time he said he did. Gore actually went to Vietnam, albeit as a military journalist.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by bmilder
If Saddam had nothing to hide, then he would have no problems letting the inspectors back in.

I agree. He has not fulfilled his UN inspection requirements. Until those are met and we have free rein to check everywhere - as dictated by the UNITED NATIONS - we should not accept his word.

Clearly, he is building (or has already built) chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Analysts say he is only a few years away from being able to use nuclear weapons. Don't underestimate him - these weapons, even in small quantities, can cause massive damage.

Why give him the time to create these weapons? I'm sure he'd love to lay low until his weapons of mass destruction are ready.

I am a little wary of attacking him, though - Bush has made it very clear that this time, the end result would be Saddam's removal from power. Since Saddam knows that his demise is imminent, wouldn't he be likely to use everything in his arsenal against us to go out in a blaze of glory? I fear he would have no incentive to exercise restraint and merely fight back with conventional weapons, since he has nothing to lose.

He would have no problem using these weapons on our troops in a life and death struggle. He used chemical weapons on his own people - woman, children, men - everyone.

I love how the MP from Britain came back from visiting Hussein and said that he was courteous and very believable in his sincerity. I believe the same was said about Hitler before he set his war machine in motion. By that time it was too late to stop him. Hussein is just biding his time, once he has his weapons ready, I believe he will make an attack. Maybe not directly - maybe just by supplying terrorist with biological and chemical weapons. Maybe he will plan an all out attack on Israel - an attack that may be supported by other Middle Eastern countries - if he has enough weapons of mass destruction.

[Cirdan]

The war was over twelve years ago. We didn't finish the job then. If terrorist cells are operating in Iraq and we had intelligence to verifiy it we would have no problem justifying miltary action, but no one has offered much. Maybe they are protecting intelligence sources, maybe it's just thin.

We wouldn't let the UN inspect our military facilities, so I can't say that is reason enough.

As to an attack on Israel, the US is still allied with them so it would provoke the kind of retaliation that the threat of which has provoked their sudden change of disposition, at least publicly. If we can get by on just that, it would be best for us. It's most likely a delaying tactic. If they had the capability to deliver any weapons don't you think that would provoke the use of them?

I would like to see the reaction to a poll that not only included possible casualties, but the $100 billion of so in cost, plus the fact that like Korea, we will be there forever.

Our leaders shouldn't be afraid to share the intelligence with the voters since this is a democracy, right? They should make whatever arrangements to secure the sources and give us a specific set of goals other than killing Saddam. If that is the only goal, then it is foolish. There will be another dictator to take his place.

I saw a clip that was supposedly Saddam taken from Iraqi TV. There were a half dozen guys that looked just like him. He could be dead and we'd never be sure.

[Sween]

Sadam is like the school bully. He just likes to play silly little games he love denying access to the UN inspectors for a couple of week letting it get all hot and anote people a bit then let them back.

My reading od the situation is Sadam is just playing a game and lovin every minute of it.

It seem that they dont have much on sadam and the way that countries been watched if there was something major up they would know and would of taken action by now.

If the US or any other nation saw a clear and present danger (good thats a good little saying) they would take swift and decisive action.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
We wouldn't let the UN inspect our military facilities, so I can't say that is reason enough.

He's supposed to be allowing UN weapons inspectors into his country to inspect WHERE EVER, WHENEVER. Not just the places he feels are "acceptable" to him. The sanctions won't be lifted until he allows weapons inspectors and as I said before - there have been pictures of railroad lines being built from Syria to Baghdad.

As to an attack on Israel, the US is still allied with them so it would provoke the kind of retaliation that the threat of which has provoked their sudden change of disposition, at least publicly. If we can get by on just that, it would be best for us. It's most likely a delaying tactic. If they had the capability to deliver any weapons don't you think that would provoke the use of them?

I'm not sure what your saying here. But it's only a matter of time before Hussein has Nuclear weapons and after that it's a little late. Then he holds the entire world hostage.

I would like to see the reaction to a poll that not only included possible casualties, but the $100 billion of so in cost, plus the fact that like Korea, we will be there forever.

Our leaders shouldn't be afraid to share the intelligence with the voters since this is a democracy, right? They should make whatever arrangements to secure the sources and give us a specific set of goals other than killing Saddam. If that is the only goal, then it is foolish. There will be another dictator to take his place.

I believe that we should know the facts about Iraq and Saddam - but in terms of strategy - I don't think anything should be released that can be used to tip off Saddam on our plans and get our troops killed.

I think also - part of the reason all the planning is taking long is to make sure everything is considered - including what happens to post-Hussein Iraq.

I saw a clip that was supposedly Saddam taken from Iraqi TV. There were a half dozen guys that looked just like him. He could be dead and we'd never be sure.

I know what you mean here. At his birthday celebrations around Iraq - he never appeared before his people. They had no idea that they weren't cheering for "Hussein stand-ins". If we get his body - at least America will have some DNA to confirm his death. Not that anyone in the Middle East will believe it if some "Saddam look alike" shows up.

[jerseydevil]

I got my nightly NIghtline e-mail to tell me what is on tonight. This is what they're having tonight. So anyone interested in this subject I guess can watch it.

TONIGHT'S SUBJECT: We went to war with him eleven years ago, but he's
still there. And now the administration and many in Congress are saying
that his removal, now called "regime change," may be worth going to war
for. Saddam Hussein still sits in his palaces and bunkers in Baghdad. Why
is he more dangerous now than before?

----

The U.S. tends to personalize its enemies. We went into Panama to get Noriega. We kept saying that our fight in Yugoslavia and Kosovo wasn't with the people, but with Milosevic. The war on terrorism? We just have to get Osama bin Laden. And of course, Saddam. He's sort of lost his last name, becoming just "Saddam." Of course, I think that this view tends to ignore the fact that all of these leaders have thousands, if not tens of thousands of people who are willing, or in fact eager, to carry out their policies. Saddam does not hold power simply because of his personal magnetism. He has a huge secret police and military establishment that keeps him in power. If he were to go away, to be killed or captured, do we think that all these other guys would see the error of their ways and become staunch supporters of democracy? Of course not.

So why now? Why is it important to go after Saddam now when it hasn't been in the last 11 years? There is talk that he is somehow involved in world terrorism, although the one possible link with 9/11, a reported meeting between an Iraqi intelligence agent and the leading hijacker in the Czech Republic has been discredited, although it has recently been resurrected by some in the administration. It is fairly certain that he has continued his work on obtaining biological and chemical weapons, and possibly even nuclear. Would he share those with terrorists? Or use them himself? Isn't that reason enough to take him out?

But it wouldn't be that easy. With the possible exception of Britain, none of our allies have said they would support or participate in an invasion. The Arab countries are against it, at least publicly. And if we got rid of him, then what? Who would run the country, the opposition leaders who spend their time in London or Washington? How do you dismantle the trappings of dictatorship? How long would U.S. troops have to stay there?

During Desert Storm, Iraq launched scuds into Israel, but under great pressure from the U.S, Israel did not retaliate. If we invade Iraq, and Saddam knows that he is the target, would we expect him to show any restraint in using whatever weapons of mass destruction he has developed?

Would Israel show the same restraint if it is attacked again? There are many many questions. But the main one is, is Saddam so dangerous that the U.S. must invade another country in order to overthrow its government, however illegitimate it may be? Unfortunately, the only way that question can really be answered is if Iraq proves how dangerous it is by using some of those weapons, or giving them to others to use. Can we afford to take that chance? A miscalculation would be tragic.

So tonight we're going to look at our old, and current, enemy. Dave Marash will report on the debate over a possible war, and Chris Bury will anchor.

Tuesday, August 13, 2002

Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff
Nightline Offices
Washington, D.C.