Do You Support An Attack On Iraq?

[MrPresident]

After Iraq said that it won't allow U.N. inspectors back into the country war seems inevitable. Here in Britain there has been recent rumours that two high profile cabinet ministers will resign if Britain joins the war. The EU is keeping its distance from the situation with it probably not joining in. So do you support a war against Iraq? Should America be allowed to finish what it started in the Gulf War? Is there sufficient justification for such a war? Would you support your country sending troops and resources to help the Americans? Do Americans feel they are threatened by Iraq and Saddam enough to warrant a war? What happens if a result cannot be found quickly? Should ground troops be deployed? Can it be done in the name of NATO? or the U.N? Will it further destabily the Middle East? Can the world accept a war to remove Saddam from power and from being a viable threat? or is this another example of America disregarding world opinion and pursing another of its imperialistic policies to further increase its power?

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Yes...finish the job that should have been finished 10 years ago and get those Americans out of Saudi Arabia...

Had they done this 10 years ago I believe there would not have been the September 11th outrage.


In general though I have nothing against toppling Dictatorships and replacing them with democracies...KILL MUGABWE!

 

[ainwood]

Some random thoughts, but overall I would advocate a softly-softly approach.

Sadam Hussain won't listen to anyone in the west, nor, it appears, the UN. Pressure has to be put on Iraq by the other arab nations.

Should there be any US-lead military action, I feel that escalation is inevitable. Regardless of who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'.

If the arab nations side with Iraq, then this is the nightmare scenario for the US. If they go against, then Iraq has the military power to actually attack their neighbours, if only to restrict the oil supply to the US. If this happened, would the US (and any allies) be forced to fight it with only limited oil supplies? I can imagine that rationing of oil in the western domestic markets would cause mayhem, and further add to the pressure on the US administration.

For your poll, perhaps the "I'm anti-american" should be changed to "I'm anti the Bush administration". There is a crucial difference.




Remember when Time magazine used to have an annual cover picture, showing a clock face with "seconds to midnight" (being a picture of how close the world was to self-destruction?) Where would that be now?

 

[polymath]

I agree Saddam needs to be dealt with, but not at the expense of the Iraqi people. Assassination squads would be my answer. It's a difficult one to call.

 

[allhailIndia]

Originally posted by polymath
I agree Saddam needs to be dealt with, but not at the expense of the Iraqi people. Assassination squads would be my answer.

And end up like the Fidel Castro Fiasco! That would be fun!!

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Hell Yeah!!!!!!!!
They should go in, and kill him and all his cronies, and utterly destroy any capability of his military to take any sort of offensive action.
Then, when they've done Saddam, they can pop in North Korea, and finish that job, and then Iran, Libya and any other evil nation.
It will be harder to coordinate than Desert Storm, as the military has changed a little, but the US, Britain, Australia and the other true believers will do.
Then, the entire world can 'gung ho', a lovely little phrase meaning "strive for harmony"

 

[Hurricane]

I definitely agree with ainwood. An unprovoked American attack against Iraq would be an example of utter dumbness. The Arab countries will not just stand and look while the USA takes out a country "full of terrorists". It would most certainly be a start of a full-scale war between Israel and the Palestinians, and maybe some of the neighboring countries.

And what if Saddam is taken out? Who is going to take over? Do you really think Iraq just suddenly would become democratic, with fair elections and equal rights for everyone. The risk of a civil war is huge, and with several warlords trying to gather the masses, you can be sure they would make every effort of blaming America for the war (and they wouldn´t even hhave to lie). Iran could well see their chance and invade the messed up Iraq. Maybe America then should ally with Iraq and repeal this "cowardly terrorist sneak attack"?

I really think America should concentrate on stabilising the situation in Afghanistan. The propaganda seems to suggest everything is now ok there, but I fear that as soon America leaves the place, the Afghanistan warlords will start fighting each other once again. I will be very surprised if the new Afghanistan government is still at power at the end of the summer.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

There is a possibility of escalation, but it is best done now, rather than left to late down the line, when more extreme regimes may have come to power in the Arab world, with enhanced weapons and military capability.
It is always a dirty job to destroy a rabid animal, but it needs to be done.
Saddam needs to be removed, for the long term security and normality of the region. If the surrounding states do not agree, they should have it pointed out to them that there are only two sides to be on in this conflict.
The festering sore of Hussein's Iraq cannot be allowed to perpetuate and spread its sickness any longer.

An alternate government needs to be forged out the disparate opposition groups, and supported by Allied military presence after it assumes power. Of course, the bleeding hearts and the communists will weep and moan about imperialism, but it is a job that needs to be done.

 

[polymath]

"And end up like the Fidel Castro Fiasco! That would be fun!!"

Oh, of course, I forgot the Golden Rule! Never attempt anything that might possibly go wrong. That's what got mankind where we are today, right?

 

[eyrei]

Keep in mind that the US is technically still at war with Iraq. This would only be an escalation of the minor conflicts that are just barely newsworthy from the last few years. Hussein must be removed, he is an aggressive dictator with a touch of megalomania. Remember, this situation started because Iraq invaded another country. Iraq lost badly when the US intervened, and has not fulfilled the terms of the peace treaty. Therefore, we are still at war.

 

[Heffalump]

Topple him. Like most dictators who are hated by 80% of their population the regime will go down like a house of cards once the action begins and the people realize the effort is serious. The military action would likely be fairly quick.

The hard part is not the action but getting support of neighbors and (so-called) allies. This is important because a) the military bases are needed, b) realistically the US needs UN cooperation in setting up a successor regime.

 

[MrPresident]

Hussein must be removed, he is an aggressive dictator with a touch of megalomania.

If you make this the reason for removing him then you will have to do it for all such dictators. Otherwise America would be see as picking and choosing which dictators to remove based on whether they are pro or anti-American. America needs a legitimate reason for removing Saddem which the world can accept.

 

[Heffalump]

He's a homicidal maniac who
a)supports terrorism
b)is developing weapons of mass destruction
c)has already used such weapons agains his own citizenry
d)has already invaded 2 of his neighbors
e)calls for the complete elimination of Israel

I could go on, but why?? How much is needed for a "legitimate reason"?

 

[Maj]

I wonder how many governments will have to be toppled and rebuilt before the threat of terrorism can be reduced to a "satisfactory" level.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by MrPresident
If you make this the reason for removing him then you will have to do it for all such dictators. Otherwise America would be see as picking and choosing which dictators to remove based on whether they are pro or anti-American. America needs a legitimate reason for removing Saddem which the world can accept.

Hussein has proven his aggressiveness with his assault on Kuwait. This has nothing to do with him being pro-American or not. I do not support US action against the other members of the "Axis of Evil", as they have yet to prove anything but that they have different political ideologies than the US.

 

[Vrylakas]

I'm undecided on this one.

On the one hand, I distrust the current American administration and wonder if Bushie doesn't have a personal agenda in "finishing his father's work" in Iraq. I deeply distrust his boneheaded-security and foreign policy advisor, Condaleeza Rice, who seems to think 19th century diplomacy should be brought back. I think the accusations of unilateralism that have been made against this administration are with some merit. Also, this administration has, in their short term, shown themselves to be rather impulsive on some issues and not good at thinking things through thoroughly.

BUT, I am no lover or coddler of dictators and have no problem with a forensic pathologist having to comb through bits of teeth to confirm the custody of Saddam Hussein's last remains. As I mentioned in another post, Israel is held to task for the destruction of some 400 Palestinian villages but few have spoken out about Hussein's destruction of more than 1000 Kurdish villages. Pictures of the dead piled high from Hussein's gas attack are as gruesome as anything I've ever seen. Iraq under Hussein still represents a destabilizing force in the Middle East. Sanctions have clearly failed to dislodge Hussein, so perhaps the U.S. should do whatever it takes to remove him - with the condition that America should provide substantial support in rebuilding post-Hussein Iraq.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Vrylakas
but few have spoken out about Hussein's destruction of more than 1000 Kurdish villages. Pictures of the dead piled high from Hussein's gas attack are as gruesome as anything I've ever seen.

Seems to me that this is reason enough to do whatever it takes to remove him from power.

Again, we are still at war with Iraq because Hussein has not complied with the terms of the peace treaty.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Vrylakas
but few have spoken out about Hussein's destruction of more than 1000 Kurdish villages. Pictures of the dead piled high from Hussein's gas attack are as gruesome as anything I've ever seen.

This is right and I would have not much of a problem with the Kurds taking revenge for it against Saddam. But MANY speak about that to justify action against Iraq. For example it's the official reason for the northern "No-Fly-Zone".
Now are we (the west) supporting Kurdish rights and maybe even independence? Far from it. The Kurds do not only live in Iraq but also in Turkey. And Turkey is constantly oppressing them, including military campaigns against the Kurdish territories, which dates back to the days of Atatürk.
But are we taking ANY action against Turkey for it? No! On the contrary, we support them with weapons and also intelligence (for example in the arrest of the Kurdish rebel leader Öcalan).
Why is that? Well, Turkey is a member of NATO and follows the western political line. Iraq is not. That's the only difference.

So don't get me wrong, I would have no problem with someone going after opressive and criminal regime all over the world, in fact I would support that. But I'm strongly against being selective there.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Hard for me to say as an Israeli... An american attack on Iraq is a certain attack of Iraq on Israel.. Very possibly with chimical and biological weapons.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by eyrei
I do not support US action against the other members of the "Axis of Evil", as they have yet to prove anything but that they have different political ideologies than the US.

I absolutely would not support any military action against Iran or North Korea either, but let's not pretend the only reason they made the list is because of conflicting political ideology.

The people of North Korea are by far the most opressed in the world, and every cent of the country's income has been spent building military hardware, including weapons of mass destruction. North Korea has also provided this expertise to other nations. Like Iraq, North Korea is ruled over by a single man, there is no sharing of power or hope that another power bloc could arise. In my mind, North Korea is the equivalent of Iraq, except that it has not attacked anyone, which is a big difference.

Iran is a whole different barrel of monkeys. While political views are restricted, the people are not very oppressed. Iran is not a military state, and is not run by a single person. There is always hope that a moderate faction could gain more control. Iran has one major strike against it: sponsorship of terrorism. While I don't believe there is any evidence linking Iran to 9/11, they have had verifiable links to terror in the past, and may have their hands bloody over the palestinian conflict too. Iran, IMHO, is nothing like Iraq.

As for Saddam, I think that he should have been taken out of power when we had an excuse, back in 90/91. Now, I think it has to be done, but it's going to hurt us a lot more politically. There's also the possibility that he now has a nuke. So I ask this question: What happens when 100 000 american and allied boys get turned to radioactive dust as they approach Baghdad?


And that's how I see things. Feel free to enlighten me if you have more information.