U.S invading and taking out Iraq's Root of Evil - wrong or right??

[gael]

In answer to Switch625

First off,Thanks!

Your suggetion's 1-5, I agree with. I think it's a mix of all, give or take.
Isreal i think is a whole argument on it's own,(history wise),but i'm sure it doe'nt help.

Fundamentalism is wrong no matter were it is.
It's a menace throughout the middle-east, but i don't think invading a country is going to stop it.

I think in the long run it will only justify it and lead to it's expansation.

I have no answer's to the so- called "axis of evil", but coming from a part of a country that is very sensitive to violence, my own apinion say's that all-out war will not solve the proplem .

But what do i know?

PEACE TO ALL.

 

[Ohkrana]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Israel may be able to handle the moslem countries, but only with an enormous strain to their military. Think ww3 is impossible? Let's see... Russia just announced it will resume trading with Iraq, violating UN sanctions, if US invades will Russia back Iraq? Also while we are involved with Iraq, North Korea may decide that the timing is right to end the independence of South Korea, possibly backed by China, Vietnam & Malysia? With India on the brink of war with Packistan already & operations continuing in the Balkans & Afghanistan, US forces may be stretched to the breaking point. Germany had the best army in the world during ww2, but they spread their forces too thin, took on too many enemies at once & LOST. I do not want to see those mistakes commited by a Gung-ho US president who did not bother to assess the possible consequences of his decisions. I'm not saying that its impossible to invade Iraq unilaterally, but we need to step back and assess the consequences of doing so.

Never Underestimate your enemy (or those whom might be your enemies).

I mostly agree; any war is impossible contain. The very idea of a contained war is nonsense. The nature of war is to be unpredictable and voracious.

And it's these kinds of possible conflict points that need to be considered and have contingencies planned for.

I'm starting to wonder about all these Iraq war plan leaks? Are they real or just a deception. Keep Saddam paranoid and looking outward while oblivious from the threat from within; ASSASSINATION (damn Exec Order 12333 to hell).

A nicely timed heart attack!
That would solve the situation nicely. And I'm sure who ever stepped in as leader after that would be far more agreeable to the west.

 

[Mad Bomber]

Too Hollywood?

Thirteen months ago an attack on American soil using airplanes as WMD's would have been considered too "hollywood" now its history. Why would Vietnam & malyasia be involved...GREED., piece of the pie. (also Malyasia is almost entirely muslim, not a stretch to imagine them joining a cause in which the middle east is involved in) I could add a couple of other scenarios China invading Tiawan, India invading Sri Lanka. Your answer to the manpower issue is the draft. Remember what happened in the last conflict that the US instituted the draft? The advance in technology only acerbates the problems faced by the US military, the more advanced, the more they cost, the more they cost the less you can make for the military. It has already been estimated that the US would have problems supplying troops,equipment, and ammunition in more than two areas of medium intensity conflict. Manpower is only one of the problems, ammunition stores are largly depleted due to the balkans, & afghanistan. Troops scheduled to deploy in afghanistan in a week took in general a month to deploy in country. The risk is substantial

If you are right & no one backs Iraq & IF Saddam does not use WMD's then we will be successful, but both of those are big IF's.

Russia does not need to supply troops & they won't be trading microchips to Iraq. That announcement is a clear indication that they intend to continue arms sales to Iraq. This could include the SU-35 a very capable aircraft, TU-26 Bombers, next generation of radar & SAMS, T-80 & T-90 tanks, and possibly research into WMD's. Russia's statement is an indication that they have an interest in Iraq, enough to go to war over? Possibly.

 

[IceBlaZe]

3) Finally, if a war between US & Iraq does happen & Israel were to be dragged into it, most of the Moslem countries would then side with Iraq and may lead to WW3. So WE (the US) have to think HARD before we decide that we must take this course of action.

What's that, an automated answer?
Israel has been "brutalizing" the Palestinians for ages and none of the Arab countries move a twitch, yet when you think Israel will reply to an Iraqi attack suddenly they will all unite?

The arab countries hate Israel but the last thing they want to do is even touch Israel.
Egypt is totally dependant on Americna Aid, the Jordanian regime can dissapear in a moment of war due to the Palestinian majority and Iran doesn't want to give anyone reasons to attack their nuclear reactor.

 

[gael]

Iraq war leaks,or political plunder?

The man sounds like he's righting out a blue print for the next big one. Naming a fist full of country's as "EVIL".
He looks like he's enjoying himself too.

DO I MAKE YOU PROUD DADDY?

 

[gael]

What happened on sep 11th can never be justified.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Think ww3 is impossible? Let's see... Russia just announced it will resume trading with Iraq, violating UN sanctions, if US invades will Russia back Iraq?

No, why should they?
Russia is not in the best economical situation and they only want to take care of Iraqs fear of the US to sign an economic deal.
I don't believe that the simple Economic interests Russia has in Iraq will lead to an intervention, do you?
Russia might resist in words, but they won't move a soldier.

Also while we are involved with Iraq, North Korea may decide that the timing is right to end the independence of South Korea,

Hardly. North Korea couldn't think of a worse time to attack South Korea.

possibly backed by China,

Why should China get involved at all in military politics?
Currently china is building up it's economic and military strength, the last thing they want to do is use it way too soon and destabilize their own regime.

Vietnam & Malysia?

You are just pulling out countries with no reason.
All of the wars on the past were based on true casus bellis or continuous tension with no fear of WMD weapons.
Today's world is different, countries won't join a war just because they like it like in the past, everyone is afraid of the A-Bomb and unless truly in risk I don't believe Asian countries will do something that will get the US trigger-happy.

With India on the brink of war with Packistan

Exactly. India and Pakistan both fear each others nukes and that's what preventing them from going to war.
With India obviously sided with Israel and Pakistan already used by the US, the last thing Pakistan would want to do is trigger a war in such a worst time.
Same thing for India, the last thing they want to do is Divert the attention from Iraq by attacking Pakistan, uniting the world to sanction their ass and maybe get nuked by Pakistan.

already & operations continuing in the Balkans & Afghanistan, US forces may be stretched to the breaking point.

Hardly. You are just inventing causes and joining countries with no substantial casus belli, against countries that hold severe NBC weapons (India vs. Pakistan, World vs. Israel + USA).

Germany had the best army in the world during ww2, but they spread their forces too thin, took on too many enemies at once & LOST.

Germany was controlled by a racist Megalomanic madman and NBC fear was not tangible back then.
Here no one is fighting with the casus belli of pure conquest. Imperialism is over. What's your point?

I do not want to see those mistakes commited by a Gung-ho US president who did not bother to assess the possible consequences of his decisions.

Actually, if you actually look into the future nothing can be more useful than taking out saddam NOW before it is too late.
Or do you want to wait untill he gets a hold of nukes, followed by Iran?

I'm not saying that its impossible to invade Iraq unilaterally, but we need to step back and assess the consequences of doing so.

The chances that a global war will break out just because USA is taking care out of Iraq (which no one loves btw, just like the Palestinains) are as thin as my hairs.

Although, the chances that Saddam will get Nuclear Weapons in the next 2 or 3 years, according to both CIA and the Mossad assesments are very big.
And then what? The world largest Madman who thinks he is the apostle of Muhammed has nukes.
Happy?

 

[Rodgers]

I dont support terrorism or Saddam but can anyone tell me what the Iraqi regime is doing that means it needs to be attacked OTHER THAN developing weapons of mass destruction? Is it funding terrorist groups or something? I'm not arguing against anyone I'd just like some factual information

 

[ZultanofZex]

They have no Macdonald stand!!!!!!!

The Horror! The Horror!

 

[Rodgers]

Having read through this thread a bit more it seems those in favour of an attack are very confident of success. From what I know I doubt it will be a re-run of the first war against Saddam.

Firstly, there are reports that he will not fight an open-country battle but stay in the cities which will be fortified. Considering that the first war was won mainly by aerial attacks for weeks on end followed by an encircling manouevre in the desert I dont think there would be a way to really get to grips with the Republican Guard and avoid bloody street fighting that pretty much nullifies the US technological advantage AND racks up huge civilian casualties (which would destroy any remaining support in the Arab world - THEN how would you get your supplies in. Also, the claim to liberating the Iraqi people by killing thousands of them and destroying their homes would ring a bit hollow). Human shields on a grand scale.

Secondly, it would be so easy for him to use chemical or biological weapons on US troops who would be out in the open country and avoid effective retalliation if the only target is a city full of civilians (and Iraqi troops).

I'd like to know what the US strategy for the attack is likely to be and their assessment of the Iraqi defence strategy 'cos they must have something up their sleeve.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Rodgers
I dont support terrorism or Saddam but can anyone tell me what the Iraqi regime is doing that means it needs to be attacked OTHER THAN developing weapons of mass destruction? Is it funding terrorist groups or something? I'm not arguing against anyone I'd just like some factual information

Saddam has supported Palestinian terrorists for years, including a nice "bonus" of 25,000$ to families of suicide bombers (in a society where the average income is 2$ a day). Clearly this is done in order to incourage suicide bombers and make sure that the need to feed their family won't stop them from commiting their attacks.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Ohkrana

As a message to the rest of mid-east and other nations that share their cultural similarities! This is what happens when you pick a fight with the west.

Or, more accurately, when the west picks a fight with you!

The US should encourage support from nations that can be trusted to back up words of support, with action. Rules most of nations of the EU out in my opinion.

I'm pretty sure Australia's out, and I doubt the UK will be far behind, which leaves who exactly?

This doesn't change or stop the fact; Saddam is trying to develop nulcuer weapons.

Given the fact he targeted Israel in the past, with scuds. I have no doubt he would try it with a nuke missile.

Has the US attacked anyone with cruise missiles? With nuclear weapons? How many other volatile countries already have nuclear weapons? Maybe you should concentrate on them, rather than Saddam because you don't like him.

Originally posted by gael [/i]
"Root of Evil"?...sounds like a bad STD.

LOL

Q.Why do the people in the middle- east hate America so much?

Because the US interferes/has interfered with these countries a whole lot. US foreign policy is not designed to keep other countries happy. You have no idea the trouble the US has caused in many of these countries. Couple this with the cultural and religious differences, and some leaders who want to stir up trouble (Saddam is one, but i'd slip Dubya into the 'stirring up trouble' category too). Keep in mind that everything you see of them, they see the equal and opposite. They (as far as i know) see their culture as normal, the same way you do, and see yours the same way that you see theirs. As you become 'an affront to allah', they become 'the enemies of freedom'.

by SunTzu
nothing is going to come back and haunt us

I think it will, and only time will tell.

by mad bomber
3) Finally, if a war between US & Iraq does happen & Israel were to be dragged into it, most of the Moslem countries would then side with Iraq and may lead to WW3. So WE (the US) have to think HARD before we decide that we must take this course of action. [/B]

I think that's highly unlikely, unless you do something extremely stupid. Currently they're doing no more than most European nations.

Also, with russia-trading etc, Iraq takes more Australian wheat than anyone else, and they're the ones threatening the severing of trade if we join america. (worth like 800 mil or somewhat)

And if anyone's wondering about the end of the world, read the book of revelation. Just a hint

(EDIT):Added more stuff in.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by bobgote
Or, more accurately, when the west picks a fight with you!

>>> Saddam started wars with Iran and kuwait. The next he'll start will be after he'll have nukes and there's no reason for the US to wait for that.

I'm pretty sure Australia's out, and I doubt the UK will be far behind, which leaves who exactly?

>>> The US, Israel and possibly Turkey. The countries that have something to lose when Saddam gets nukes.

Has the US attacked anyone with cruise missiles? With nuclear weapons? How many other volatile countries already have nuclear weapons? Maybe you should concentrate on them, rather than Saddam because you don't like him.

>>> There's a big difference between using nuclear weapons during a war world and doing so against anyone who dares to disobey you. Saddam has proven he is willing to use NBC weapons against civilians, foreign soldiers, or anyone else he dislikes for that matter. Do you think such a madman should be allowed to get nukes?

 

[Rodgers]

"Saddam has supported Palestinian terrorists for years, including a nice "bonus" of 25,000$ to families of suicide bombers (in a society where the average income is 2$ a day). Clearly this is done in order to incourage suicide bombers and make sure that the need to feed their family won't stop them from commiting their attacks."

If I remember rightly wasn't that bonus scheme announced only recently - ie AFTER the US started to raise the possibility of an attack on Iraq? Also, both Syria and Libya (and I'm sure other Arab states too - Sudan?) have backed Palestinian terrorism for just as long. So, is there anything ELSE to justifty it?

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Rodgers
If I remember rightly wasn't that bonus scheme announced only recently - ie AFTER the US started to raise the possibility of an attack on Iraq? Also, both Syria and Libya (and I'm sure other Arab states too - Sudan?) have backed Palestinian terrorism for just as long. So, is there anything ELSE to justifty it?

It's ben like this for a much longer time - even before the sep11th attacks. Also, as someone said here already, there are evidences that Iraqi officials met with one of the hijackers in an east european city. Add to that the fact that he's mentaly unstable, megalomaniac, developing nukes, used WMD against his enemies and against his own people, started several wars for the sole purpose of expanding his authority, shot balistic missiles at Israel and Saudi, and you get a very good justification.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Rodgers
"Saddam has supported Palestinian terrorists for years, including a nice "bonus" of 25,000$ to families of suicide bombers (in a society where the average income is 2$ a day). Clearly this is done in order to incourage suicide bombers and make sure that the need to feed their family won't stop them from commiting their attacks."

If I remember rightly wasn't that bonus scheme announced only recently - ie AFTER the US started to raise the possibility of an attack on Iraq? Also, both Syria and Libya (and I'm sure other Arab states too - Sudan?) have backed Palestinian terrorism for just as long. So, is there anything ELSE to justifty it?

I think it was there before, but it was recently raised from $10,000 to $25,000 i think.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Why would Vietnam & malyasia be involved...GREED., piece of the pie. (also Malyasia is almost entirely muslim, not a stretch to imagine them joining a cause in which the middle east is involved in)

I could add a couple of other scenarios China invading Tiawan, India invading Sri Lanka.

Your answer to the manpower issue is the draft. Remember what happened in the last conflict that the US instituted the draft? The advance in technology only acerbates the problems faced by the US military, the more advanced, the more they cost, the more they cost the less you can make for the military. It has already been estimated that the US would have problems supplying troops,equipment, and ammunition in more than two areas of medium intensity conflict. Manpower is only one of the problems, ammunition stores are largly depleted due to the balkans, & afghanistan. Troops scheduled to deploy in afghanistan in a week took in general a month to deploy in country. The risk is substantial

If you are right & no one backs Iraq & IF Saddam does not use WMD's then we will be successful, but both of those are big IF's.

Russia does not need to supply troops & they won't be trading microchips to Iraq. That announcement is a clear indication that they intend to continue arms sales to Iraq. This could include the SU-35 a very capable aircraft, TU-26 Bombers, next generation of radar & SAMS, T-80 & T-90 tanks, and possibly research into WMD's. Russia's statement is an indication that they have an interest in Iraq, enough to go to war over? Possibly.

1.) Vietnam is not on best friend terms with China, disputing the ownership of the Spratly's with them. What they could bring to the bargin is also extremely questionable. As for Malaysia, that is most laughable. Maybe Northern Nigeria will join in too.
China and North Korea - somewhat possible, but the US does have extensive plans and capabilities for such a scenario.
And I would back M1-A2s against North Korean armour.

2.) You can add as many scenarios as you want. But the likelihood of them all happening at once is rather small, in reality. India would not want to jeopardize its long term relations with the US, and neither would China.

3.) One thinks that the need for a draft will not eventuate. Call up of round up units from the National Guard, yes, but not another Vietnam.
People have been saying "It'll be the next Vietnam" ever since Vietnam, except it hasn't quite turned out that way. Some people are even disappointed on that matter, which is quite despicable, in my view.

4.) There have been many different "estimates" from differing sources. The US military have cut back since 1990/91, but no one is saying they are going in tommorrow. They are preparing, and the ammunition plants, et al are most certainly not idle. New technology is being brought in by the day, with JSOWs and JDAMs being procured in ever increasing numbers, and Super Hornets deployed on their first operational cruise.
They will build things up, and operate according to a well made plan. To suggest that the US government and military would enter such a large enterprise without such heavy and careful planning is to be facetious.

5.) However "backs" Iraq seals their own death warrant. That much is plain and simple

6.) As for advanced Russian arms sales to Iraq, this is drawing a very long bow indeed. It is suggesting that the Iraqis have the hard currency the Russians need, and the Russians decide that this short term cash is of more importance than a longer term relationship with the United States. The alleged "economic agreement" is not yet set in stone, and EVEN IF such arms sales were mooted, the US would have a quiet word in Putin's ear, or even outbid Hussein. One thinks that this is more a case of the Russians trying to steal the American's thunder by cutting a peace deal. Remember the Soviet endeavours in the first Gulf War.


Iraq started this matter in 1990 and it will be finished, with the US and whatever allies want to jump on board doing the job and then remaking the country. One far prefers this scenario, than respecting Saddams sovereignty and word of honour, and then in 6 years time getting an ultimatum:"Withdraw all US forces from the Persian Gulf region in 3 days, or we will nuke a city in Southern Europe and/or burn Israel to the ground with fire." What then? Will there be such concern over Iraq's rights, and the lives of its citizens.
It is better to nip the problem in the bud, whilst we still can.

 

[Vengeance]

Where do you get the idea that Saddam Hussien is 'mentally unstable'. Unless your a psychiatrist how can your judgements be valid? Just because you hate someone does not mean they suffer from mental illness.

Saying that Saddam Hussien will use WMD in the future is nothing but speculation. Ofcourse saying that he will not is speculation aswell but theories should not be grounds for war.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Vengeance
Where do you get the idea that Saddam Hussien is 'mentally unstable'. Unless your a psychiatrist how can your judgements be valid? Just because you hate someone does not mean they suffer from mental illness.

Saying that Saddam Hussien will use WMD in the future is nothing but speculation. Ofcourse saying that he will not is speculation aswell but theories should not be grounds for war.

Saddam is a nutcase. Please read this article (link originally provided by IceBlaze) and get back to me about whether or not the man is out of touch with reality.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
And I would back M1-A2s against North Korean armour.

Are you sure?

Yak-7's and T-34's are pretty intimidating