Jordan will support US attack on Iraq

With all the uproar going on about the world opposing a US led attack on Iraq, I found this brief blurb in a Reuters news item today very interesting.

"In Amman, officials and diplomats said although Jordan might have deep misgivings about a U.S. attack on Iraq, the kingdom which sat on the fence in the 1991 Gulf War would have no choice but to join a U.S.-led campaign. "
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=worldnews&StoryID=1393327

The Jordanians appear to have a few more b*lls than our EU allies. I guess we now have a coalition of 2: the US and Jordan. Who will be next?

A bunch of rednecks and a noose? Par for the course when rounding up a lynching posse.

The Jordanians are in the middle, between Iraq and Israel. I wonder if this has any bearing on possible policy. This fact might give impetus to their backing of US invasion plans. There has been a predrop of armaments near the Red Sea. I would guess this is at a point near Jordan.

When push comes to shove, everybody will fall in line with the US no matter what the public posturing is at the moment. No doubt that there are nations which would prefer to avoid this as they have trade links with Baghdad and those closer to the situation will feel the political fallout as well. But Iraq is a third world country which won't provide much opposition when it comes to a war with a superpower, so everybody will look to fall in with the winner naturally enough. There is no reason that trade can't be re-established with Iraq with whoever is installed as the new Regime.

The public will be brought onside with a mounting propaganda campaign against evil Saddam, nations like Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait Saudi Arabia and the rest will be offered attractive enducements to provide the necessary international support and it should be plain sailing from there I would suspect. I do not see any problems whatsoever for the US once Bush decides to push ahead.

Re: Jordan will support US attack on Iraq

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
The Jordanians appear to have a few more b*lls than our EU allies. I guess we now have a coalition of 2: the US and Jordan. Who will be next?
[/QUOTE]

So supporting a thug grants u a few extra balls?

Or having an independent opinion of an issue takes away your balls?

What analogy!

What's the reason that mainly the Zionists are only supporters of this attack while rest of the civilized world has called for a diplomatic way out. Seems like the main underlying objectives are to put a puppet regime in Iraq, take control of the world's second oil reserves, and give Israel an un fettered access to Saudi Arabia through the Iraqi air-space. The reason is none other to create an ardent supporter of the US in the region, when the support is fast dwindling amongst the Arabs.

Why use Jordan or Turkey for that matter as scapegoats in launching the attack on Iraq? Why not use Israel. Afterall, Israel is a staunch friend of America more than any other nation at this moment. And they overwhelimingly are in favor of an attack on Iraq - (it may strengthen them in the region as well).

I quote from today’s LA Times:

"In fact, Israel may be unique in that it actually encourages an invasion of Iraq–“the sooner the better,” as government officials put it. The conservative Jerusalem Post recently proclaimed that Bush’s hard line on Iraq puts him “at the cusp of greatness.”

Those interested can read the entire article here:

(http://www.latimes.com/news/specials/911/la-fg-usimage1sep01.story)

I believe the potential for an oil rich Iraq funding an advanced weapons program that could be handed off to independant actors for clandestine use where ever that is the driving force for the argument to invade Iraq. The "control" of oil is a ancillary issue, if at all. I have heard this discussed in congressional hearings on the matter. It elicited some slight interest and sly laughs. Iraq needs it's infrastructure rebuilt. Any oil profits must be directed towards this end. The US must not be a dictatorial power in foreign policy, either. "Sole" superpower status conveys the responsibility for responsible action, not over action.

Jordan may feel more threatened by Iraq than Israel. The peace between them had been in place for quite some time. Jordan's government tends to fall on the side of modernism, even though it is a monarchy. It is not of the totalitarian type like Iraq.

a bit contrary to what other media outlets have reported - Jordan has publicly opposed any moves to attack Iraq.

**Jordan warns against Iraq attack**

It is also being reported that Kuwait will support a U.S. strike against Iraq.

Expect more Arab countries to follow suit, in public they will be against such a strike but under the table there are handshakes galore.

Welcome back Nadia_H

They’re linin’ up - first Jordan, now Kuwait.

Kuwait opposes strike against Iraq.

Thanks, UTD. Nice to be back.

Yeah sure..!

that would most probably be moral support.

Jordan is a crippled country and a parasite (feeding on Iraq).

No oils, no resource.

Who Are All You People Who Support a War Against Iraq?

Polls tell us there’s a national passion for the United States to take Iraq, and having been there once, I thought I might review the highlights of my trip.

I went in from the north in May of 1991. The Iraqi army was supposed to have withdrawn from the area, or so I was told.

Traveling with two photographers, I kept driving deeper into the northern hills, which reminded me of California wine country. We were in search of Saddam Hussein’s summer palace because a crazy editor thought it would be a good idea to see what the vacation home of a madman looks like.

Hussein’s army had just been destroyed in the south, ending the Gulf War. And now the coalition forces were ordering the Iraqis out of the north, so the Kurdish refugees could return home.

Two hours into the drive, we came around a bend and there it was–a hilltop villa surrounded by a concrete wall. We parked at the entrance, got out and discovered that some Iraqi soldiers had not gotten the word to head south.

They came at us slowly, with machine guns, and their leader asked in English if we were with the CIA. Then he wanted to know what we thought of Saddam Hussein and George Bush.

I saw a bullet-pocked wall behind us and empty shell casings at our feet, so I gave the answers the Iraqis wanted to hear: Saddam good. Bush bad.

They led us into a trailer and offered tea. One soldier took a photo of Saddam off the wall, kissed it and passed it around for others to do the same. They talked of all the Iraqis killed by Americans and of how much they hated the Kurds. I thought, for a moment, that we might never leave the trailer.

But then the encounter turned surreal. Saddam’s army wanted to talk about Madonna and Michael Jackson. They were torn between Saddam’s party line and their natural curiosity about America.

“I want to go to Hollywood,” said one soldier before they all finally led us outside and waved goodbye, as if we were tourists who’d taken a wrong turn.

If the experience helped clarify anything for me, it was the idea of war as puppetry. I would later find much the same in Bosnia, where Muslims and Serbs who’d lived in peace were turned against each other to advance the political survival of despots trading in hatred and caricature.

This is not to say war isn’t sometimes necessary, but that we ought to, with every fiber of our humanity and every democratic right, challenge the motives and claims of saber-rattling puppeteers before sending our sons and sisters off to die.

And yet, 11 years after America’s first tour of Iraq, The Times Poll finds a nation eager to go to war, if not kiss a photo of the commander-in-chief.

Why? Because we’re having our strings pulled by the White House in a propaganda campaign that would impress Saddam. He is evil, we are told, and we’ve got to take him out now. If not for our own safety, then for the sake of a free and democratic Iraq.

Let me say without hesitation that if President Bush could prove Hussein had any connection to Al Qaeda and Sept. 11, war would make perfect sense.

If we had the vaguest notion who might take over when Saddam is gone, sure.

If we knew for sure he is capable of blowing up the world, let’s go get him.

If there were any reason to believe war on Iraq might stabilize the Middle East and diminish, rather than increase, the threat of terrorist attacks on the U.S., sign me up.

But guess what, folks. There is none of that.

And still, nearly two-thirds of the 1,372 adults polled nationwide say they would support a ground attack on Iraq.

Who are you people?

Are you the same ones I see going into the Olive Garden?

Are you the audience CBS and Fox had in mind when they dreamed up reality TV shows based on “The Beverly Hillbillies” and “Green Acres”?

Until we can figure out a way to conduct polls that make us look smarter, we ought to ban them altogether. I don’t know about you, but I’m always dying to ask follow-up questions to the ones you see in polls.

For instance: You seem to really have it in for Iraq. Do you have any idea that Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, is where most of the Sept. 11 terrorists came from?

Does it concern you even a little that the two biggest cheerleaders for war–President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney–didn’t fight themselves when they had the chance?

Are you willing to lose a loved one to free Iraq?

**Maybe not. I did notice that while 64% want a ground attack, only 45% would stick to their guns if a lot of blood was spilled. We want what we want, but not if it involves sacrifice.

One saving grace is that 61% of those who want a war said we should only start one if other countries back us up. But there is no backup, and some folks in the rest of the world seem to think we’re the madmen now.**

Steve Lopez writes Sunday, Wednesday and Friday

Great Article, 5Abi, thanks.

Anytime Nadia. And Welcome back :)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by 5Abi: *

If we knew for sure he is capable of blowing up the world, let's go get him.

And still, nearly two-thirds of the 1,372 adults polled nationwide say they would support a ground attack on Iraq.

Who are you people?

Are you willing to lose a loved one to free Iraq?

[/QUOTE]

Saddam has chemical weapons. We do not know how close Saddam is to nuclear weapons. Saddam is not a rational person, he fought a war against the world that is not rational, his actions are unpredictable.

The article states "If we knew for sure he is capable of blowing up the world, let's go get him."

If we knew for sure then it would be to late "to go get him", once he has the trigger to press it is to late, does that make sense to anyone or only Americans? We don't know how close he is because he refuses to allow inspectors in.

I am one who understands what Saddam is capable of, he is a mad man, I understand that he is willing to Gas innocent people.

Am I willing to lose a loved one to Free Iraq? No. but freeing Iraq by ousting Saddam would be a nice side effect. The fact is freeing Iraq is not the reason America will attack Saddam, the number 1 priority is making sure that a mad man does not get a hold of a WMD.

I would like to ask the same question that Steve Lopez ask, who are you people? Who are you people who think Saddam isn't a threat, who are you people who think Saddam isn't trying to gain WMD, who are you people who believe Saddam isn't hiding his WMD. Who are you people who back Saddam even though he bars inspectors from entering Iraq?

Perhaps you are the same people who stood silent and did nothing while Hitler came to power and built a war machine.

[quote]
We don't know how close he is because he refuses to allow inspectors in.
[/quote]

I think Iraq is completely justified to refuse to allow weapons inspectors unless their conditions are met. Iraq is arguing that the WI must not be working on another mandate, kept hidden from Annan and the rest of the UN - as occurred previously on numerous occasions. Iraq also insists there must exist a particular guideline which the WI will follow so that the inspections are not open-ended and permanent. Why should Iraq, of all countries, bow down and surrender its sovereignty?

Everyone makes much talk of Hussein's chemical and nuclear weapons - especially the countries that we know possess the most amounts of these. The very countries that sold Iraq such weapons, are now quivering in their boots about it - give me a break. If Iraq is producing nuclear weapons, why are the US and UK scared to publish their evidence? Show the rest of the world what you have so we are convinced as well.

i'll give credit to the Toxic Texan for trying his hardest - first it was a Prague-based secret meeting, then it was anthrax, now it's weapons of mass destruction...... If the principle of pre-emptive strikes is a rational one, then IMHO, with all this Iraq-saber rattling going on, it is Iraq that possesses the right to attack the countries that are threatening it. Let's not forget that Iraq - and not the US and not the UK - has buried 1.5 million (and counting) of its citizens. That's weapons of mass destruction for you.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *

I think Iraq is completely justified to refuse to allow weapons inspectors unless their conditions are met. Iraq is arguing that the WI must not be working on another mandate, kept hidden from Annan and the rest of the UN - as occurred previously on numerous occasions. Iraq also insists there must exist a particular guideline which the WI will follow so that the inspections are not open-ended and permanent. Why should Iraq, of all countries, bow down and surrender its sovereignty?

Everyone makes much talk of Hussein's chemical and nuclear weapons - especially the countries that we know possess the most amounts of these. The very countries that sold Iraq such weapons, are now quivering in their boots about it - give me a break. If Iraq is producing nuclear weapons, why are the US and UK scared to publish their evidence? Show the rest of the world what you have so we are convinced as well.

i'll give credit to the Toxic Texan for trying his hardest - first it was a Prague-based secret meeting, then it was anthrax, now it's weapons of mass destruction...... If the principle of pre-emptive strikes is a rational one, then IMHO, with all this Iraq-saber rattling going on, it is Iraq that possesses the right to attack the countries that are threatening it. Let's not forget that Iraq - and not the US and not the UK - has buried 1.5 million (and counting) of its citizens. That's weapons of mass destruction for you.
[/QUOTE]

Nadia, Welcome back. Go back to the why the weapons inspectors were there to begin with. Who signed the treaty and why. Blame Saddam for the deaths as if he would have followed his signed agreement this would be long over. Does he have the right to attack, sure let him..

Blair makes a good point reminding us that Saddam is not someone anyone should be protecting, he is an dangerious and cruel man.

Blair to publish dossier of evidence against Iraq.

Tony Blair has promised to publish a dossier of evidence against Iraq “in the next few weeks” as he gave his broadest hint yet of support for toppling Saddam Hussein.
Speaking at a special news conference on Tuesday, the UK prime minister said the “real and unique” posed by Iraq had to be tackled - but how to do it was under discussion.
“I believe there is evidence that they will acquire nuclear weapons if they possibly can,” he said.

Mr Blair stressed no decisions on military action had been taken but it was in the UK’s national interest to confront the problem.

“The United States should not have to face this issue alone, we should face it together,” he continued.

‘Regime change’

Mr Blair said tackling Iraq’s alleged build-up of weapons of mass destruction was the key issue, but he appeared to indicate new support for US talk of “regime change” in Baghdad.
“You would think from some of the discussion that we are dealing with some benign liberal democracy out in Iraq,” he said.

"We are dealing with a regime that routinely tortures and executes its political opponents, that probably was responsible for up to 100,000 Kurdish people dying in a brutal campaign in order to enforce Iraqi rule.

"Either the regime starts to function in an entirely different way, and there hasn’t been much sign of that, or the regime has to change.

“That is the choice, very simply.”

There was no need for negotiations, said Mr Blair, as Iraq knew perfectly well what it had to do.

“They have a complete and total obligation to let the weapons inspectors back in, any time, any place, anywhere,” he said.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ex-Army: * Nadia, Welcome back. Go back to the why the weapons inspectors were there to begin with. Who signed the treaty and why. Blame Saddam for the deaths as if he would have followed his signed agreement this would be long over. Does he have the right to attack, sure let him..
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the welcome back, 5Abi and Ex-Army.

I don't need to refresh my memory as to why the weapons inspectors were there in the first place. It seems as though Bush and co. could do with a refresher course though - nowhere in the inspectors' mandate did it say that they could do espionage work, which even Annan later confessed that they did. And check out Fraudia's BBC article in the other Iraq thread by UTD.

The inspectors were initially there exclusively to disarm Iraq of its WMD - NOT to instill regime change. Now, even if Iraq admits weapons inspectors, it's still open season on Iraq - the US retains the right to attack Iraq whether or not Iraq allows weapons inspectors. It's pretty transparent, at least to the likes of Nelson Mandela, Chris Patten, Joschka Fischer, and the EU, who's changing the rules and goalposts around here.