Should the United States attack Iraq?

What do you think?

I think an attack is justified. Iraq is developing deadly biological weapons that it would willingly give to terrorists. Saddam Hussein has commited heinous crimes against the Iraqi people. A U.S. attack could help Iraq become a major democracy in the middle east.

No.... unless, maybe... .. . .

If America decides to let weapons inspectors enter it's hallowed shores, and Iraq is still refusing to do similar; then attack.

And don't give me that sh!t about evil Saddam. That's double standards for two countries.

Okay...let's recap 1988...

Iraq used chemical agents against Kurds in the north...

The United States held a fair election...

1990-91?

Iraq invaded Kuwait and raped, pillaged, and plundered.

The United States drove Iraq out of Kuwait and reinstalled the legitimate government.

And you're complaining about double standards?

Yes, of course an attack on Iraq is justified. Any totalitarian power that refuses basic freedoms to it's people should be immedately removed by any means.

Originally posted by Baleog
If America decides to let weapons inspectors enter it's hallowed shores

Click to expand...

Did I miss the point when we agreed to allow weapon inspectors here?

Its a nice name for public spy, and Saddam agreed to them to cling on to power, then he changed his mind.
Of course, he has the perfect right to do that like any dictator has to follow their whims. I think the inability to enforce his own rules underline the fact that international agreements are only worth anything if 1: both sides are willing anyway, in which case there is no need for agreement, or 2: they can be backed up by force.

Saddam has done enough to warrant an overthrow, but I don't like the idea that it has to be done with American lives and dollars, and I don't like the idea that it is thrown in with the war on terror. American's MIGHT die if we leave him, American's WILL die if we don't.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The United States drove Iraq out of Kuwait and reinstalled the legitimate government.

Click to expand...

Monarchies are never legitimate.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Yes, of course an attack on Iraq is justified. Any totalitarian power that refuses basic freedoms to it's people should be immedately removed by any means.

Click to expand...

If that's the reason for the US to attack Iraq there are a few more countries to be dealt with.

Originally posted by Greadius
Did I miss the point when we agreed to allow weapon inspectors here?

Click to expand...

No, you didn't.
And that was actually his point (I think...) . If America doesn't allow weapons inspectors, why should Iraq be bombed for not doing it either?

yes and while your "buzy"then put off china,all africa,most parts of the middle east,south america,cuba,Belgium.(oh yes we have a king!free us! free us!(SARCASTIC))america is not the master of the world .
who gave america permission to do all that stuff?

Superpower-dom is its own permission. America is powerful, therefore they can get away with things. I didn't read about anybody complaining about French unilateralism during their imperial period.

Originally posted by Primeval Dragon
Superpower-dom is its own permission. America is powerful, therefore they can get away with things. I didn't read about anybody complaining about French unilateralism during their imperial period.

Click to expand...

Uhh, that would be because people couldn't read, let alone ask questions as to why they are at war. they simply did it out of grim loyalty. I don't believe superpower-dom is its own permission, the USSR apparently had the same right during the cold war?

I think this all could be solved in friggin Saddam would let the weapon inspectors in and the US agreed to end sanctions after the inspectors are finished.

Originally posted by Gandalf13
Iraq is developing deadly biological weapons that it would willingly give to terrorists.

Click to expand...

Really? Iraq has had chemical and biological weapons for at least the last 15 years and hasn't given them to terrorists (such as those operating against Israel).

A U.S. attack could help Iraq become a major democracy in the middle east.

Click to expand...

You are kidding, aren't you?

Somewhat ironically, Iran is probably the closest thing to a democracy in the arab states in the Middle East (which isn't saying much!)

uhh no, Lebanon is the closest but still not great, Iran is a dictatorship.

Last time Saddam allowed weapons inspectors they had to give him warning before they searched, and he didn't let them go to many places. Weapons inspectors were useless, and they will be again.

I think it's justified, but that doesn't mean I think it's smart.

R.III

I think it is justified. Not the smartest thing but justified. It would be really unsmart when the retaliate, even though U.S.A. is far away it has a weak spot if Iraq started blowing the **** out of its neighbors...who knows, maybe I am exaggerating.

No. There is no reason for us to attack Iraq. Although if there is another attack on the U.S. by muslim extremists I say we take some drastic measures and conduct all-out war on Iraq and any other countries with known ties to the attackers. The U.S. could use a couple of satelite states in the mideast.

Originally posted by rmsharpe

Any totalitarian power that refuses basic freedoms to it's people should be immedately removed by any means.

Click to expand...

I thought you were a nationalist.

lets bomb em mothers.

shalom

rjgo

p.s.jk

Originally posted by rmsharpe

Iraq invaded Kuwait and raped, pillaged, and plundered.

Click to expand...

Much of the "raping, pillaging and plundering" was exagerated - fabricated to sell to the American public and thus drum up support for a war. A country still recovering from the "Vietnam Syndrome" bought the fabrication - recoiled in horror at the atrocities - and off we went assured that we were doing the "right thing".

After the invasion a Kuwaiti girl testified that she had seen Iraqi troops plundering hospitals, pillaging, raping and pulling premature babies off of incubators etc etc. This was a defining story that was used again and again to describe the "atrocities" commited by Iraq and how evil this regime was.

However it was later discovered that this girl was a daughter of a high ranking Kuwaiti official that lived in Washington.. her story was a fabrication - a lie. This is not common knowledge and obviously not something spread around by the government.

Not saying Saddam is a nice guy - they don't call him the butcher of baghdad for nothing... just saying that we as a society should stop and think before going to war instead of buying the garbage that politicians (who never see a battlefield) spew when trying to justify their actions... Propoganda is a tool used by every country in every conflict...

Remember the Golf of Tonkin Incident and the resulting resolution allowing LBJ to commit ground troups to Vietnam? Most experts admit that the attack on the first US ship was probably an accident and that there's no real proof the second attack ever happened...

Saying that what Iraq did in Kuwait is exaggerated is again, as I said before, a reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are.

So a single Kuwaiti girl lies? So what? What about the million people that were being shot at by the Iraqi army?

Originally posted by rmsharpe
So a single Kuwaiti girl lies? So what? What about the million people that were being shot at by the Iraqi army?

Click to expand...

The point isn't that a single girl lied... the point is that the "single lie" was help up and blown out of proportion.. waved around in the media to gather support for a war that people didn't really want at first. The point is also how government spin doctoring can influence public opinion and manipulate the masses.

If you honestly believe that anybody gave a crap about the kuwaiti people than you're naive. It was about the oil - that and showing the world the might of the american war machine. There were so many naysayers about the ability of american military technology - that they could't fight a desert war etc etc. Well the U.S. proved them wrong as we watched an army be torn apart in a deluge of overwhelming combat superiority. People learned afterwards that you don't defy the Americans.

Kuwait is a dictatorship itself - run my an unelected monarchy in which women are second class citizens.

Not to mention the fact that Saddam (the butcher of baghdad) was a friend and ally (of the U.S.) just a few short years before. Even as he gassed the Kurds and Iranians.

Oh yeah... well we're on the subject how about you threw the kurd reistance army to the dogs as Saddam's troops chewed them up...

Yes your government definitley believes in stopping totalitarian regimes wherever it sees them.

I sometimes wish the americans (and other country's too - mine included) would just tell the truth and stop pretending to be noble. Just say "we are going to war because we're protecting our strategic interests. We don't really care about the people - but this benefits us both economically AND allows us to at least defend the brutal dictatorship that hates us LESS than that other brutal dictatorship. Oh yeah... plus the defense industry wants a chance to try out their shiny new weapon technology and their lobbyists are VERY powerfull in our nation's capital".