In August 2002 some important US politicians of both parties asked the White House to show the evidences that Saddam Hussein is a real threat to the US and the world. It is a fact that Iraq is a third rate country and if the US is afraid of it, what about China, India, Pakistan, Great Britain, France, etc. all of which have nuclear warheads, as well as chemical and biological know-how and, more important, the means to deliver them whereas Iraq does not have these means. If the US is not able to isolate Iraq, and contains the risk that it is assumed to represent, and then we are really in trouble. It becomes clearer and clearer every day that the main aim of the US is not changing Saddam Hussein's regime -to replace with a puppet government like in Afghanistan. The US is only interested in the oil reserves that lay in the Iraqi soil, and to finish the job that George Bush senior failed to do in the 1990s.
As the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the USA was coming closer, some senior US politicians are against an invasion of Iraq. Mr James Baker, for instance, the man who won the Florida's election court case in November 2000, victory that brought Bush to the White House, said that he was against a unilateral war with Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Mr Baker has been Secretary of State under President Bush senior. Others such as Mr Brent Snowcroft, the ex-National Security Adviser, and Mr Lawrence Eagleburger who replaced Baker as Secretary of State for the same president, are against it too. Their opinions are bad for the present administration since they are still advising Mr Bush senior, and this led the media to speculate if George W. Bush's father agrees with his son's politics or not! Even Henry Kissinger is uneasy too. Mr Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, said that the inspection route should be fully exhausted before any attack takes place. There were demonstrations against a possible war with Iraq outside Bush's hotel room in Oregon. The pools show that only 53% of the Americans agree that the US should invade Iraq against 74% last November; however, 94% believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction of one kind or the other, 86% believe that he is supporting terrorist groups, and 53% believe that he was involved in some ways in the September 11 attacks. The president own popularity is now down to 65% from as high as 80/90% after September 11.
Mr Brent Scowcroft, a former adviser to many republican presidents, including George Bush senior, and a respected republican foreign policy expert, appealed to President Bush to stop his plans to invade Iraq, warning of "an Armageddon" in the Middle East. At the same time, the US national security adviser, Condolezza Rice, said that there was a powerful moral case to topple Saddam Hussein, and that the US had to do something. According to her, Saddam Hussein is an evil man who, if left alone, "will bring havoc against his own people, his neighbours and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, all of us". Again suppositions without any evidences. Scowcroft believes that Israel would be the first victim of Saddam Hussein's retaliation; it would have to respond, possibly with atomic bombs, creating the conditions for a Third World War. There are do doubts that Israel will hit back if attacked.
Some American people are afraid that a conflict with Iraq will lead the US
in something similar to the Vietnam War. A war that will last for a long period
of time, and in which many US soldiers will die. Is it worth it? The Iraqis
living in their country do not seem to want it; only the Iraqi exiles are
for it, especially those living in the US, as a war would not threaten them
personally, only bring the possibility to be imposed by the US as puppet leaders
of the invaded country. There are many would be Hamil Karzai among them.