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

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Vengeance


Yes I did read the article WHOLE. I don't see whats not to understand here. If you actually read what I wrote then you would see that I have read OTHER articles about Saddam Hussien claiming him to be the third anti-christ.

Fair enough. But what's the point in bringing up that religious mumbo-jumbo? Anyone who thinks Saddam Hussein is the third Anti-Christ is a little off.

 

[Vengeance]

I was just trying to emphasise the point that alot of stuff written about Saddam has alot of ranting 'n' raving crap. The article Iceblaze provided was a nice story but it does not mean that because Iceblaze believes all the accounts that I have to. After all its only pen and paper. Regardless of what the topic is I believe only in poven facts and first sight experience. Im not telling people that they have to do the same.

 

[Mad Bomber]

Simon:

1) Russia & Germany were not on the best of terms when they decided to split Poland between themselves in 1940. No Malyasia doesn't have a large military but they do have a thriving economy & can distribute hard currency to a potential conflict.

2) The Scenerios do not have to happen all at once, we still maintain troops and installations in over 20 countries world wide, with a military strength of slightly over 1.1 million men & women in uniform a commitment of 250 to 300 thousand troops to one area will compromise or hamper our abliity to project force in another area. It is well known that China has had plans for Tiawan for over 50 years. It is only the US navy which has prevented this from happening. With the US attention focused on Iraq, others may decide that it is the time for action.

3) People have always assumed that the war being fought will be fought as the last has. France in 1914 and 1940 are prime examples of this.Just because the US walked over Iraq in 1991 does not mean we will do the same in 2002-3. Saddam already has MWD's if we are committed to a regime change and attack he will use them.

4) Yes, the US will plan and it will execute it plan. but its hard to plan for unforseen circumstances. Will we have enough logistics to support two conflicts, each consisting of a 250,000 force commitment? Current indications are that the logistics would be extremely pressed with this level of a comittment.

5) Russia could simply trade arms for oil, with a surpus of oil they could sell the oil to europe & jumpstart their economy almost overnight. Yes once again another comparison to 1990, folks it's NOT going to be the same war in a different year. This would be even more of note if Israel were to get involved, which would change the character of the war overnight

edit:
Don't take me the wrong way, Saddam IS A THREAT to the US, I would like to sit back and think of all of the possible consequences, however unlikely, and accept the threat for what it is before we do what I feel is what we must do. I Do not think this will be a cakewalk, we will not have any allies, only after Saddam is dead will the "resistance" movement come out of the woodwork.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
1) Russia & Germany were not on the best of terms when they decided to split Poland between themselves in 1940. No Malyasia doesn't have a large military but they do have a thriving economy & can distribute hard currency to a potential conflict.

>>> Malysia has a thriving economy because of their connections to the west, connections they wouldn't be happy to brake.

2) The Scenerios do not have to happen all at once, we still maintain troops and installations in over 20 countries world wide, with a military strength of slightly over 1.1 million men & women in uniform a commitment of 250 to 300 thousand troops to one area will compromise or hamper our abliity to project force in another area. It is well known that China has had plans for Tiawan for over 50 years. It is only the US navy which has prevented this from happening. With the US attention focused on Iraq, others may decide that it is the time for action.

>>> If China will be stupid enough to attack Taiwan the US will need months of preparations before they attack anyway.

3) People have always assumed that the war being fought will be fought as the last has. France in 1914 and 1940 are prime examples of this.Just because the US walked over Iraq in 1991 does not mean we will do the same in 2002-3. Saddam already has MWD's if we are committed to a regime change and attack he will use them.

>>> Saddam had WMD in 91' as well. I prefer to be hit by a chimical missile today than by a nule a few years from now.

4) Yes, the US will plan and it will execute it plan. but its hard to plan for unforseen circumstances. Will we have enough logistics to support two conflicts, each consisting of a 250,000 force commitment? Current indications are that the logistics would be extremely pressed with this level of a comittment.

>>> Again, if the US will take China or any other country that'll start making troubles after Iraq, it'll have both the logistics and the man power almost as much as always.

5) Russia could simply trade arms for oil, with a surpus of oil they could sell the oil to europe & jumpstart their economy almost overnight. Yes once again another comparison to 1990, folks it's NOT going to be the same war in a different year. This would be even more of note if Israel were to get involved, which would change the character of the war overnight

>>> Considering the poor condition of Russian arms and the fact that they wouldn't give up too much of their army, I doubt such a deal will change the face of war. Putting a few untrained Iraqis in an old piece of soviet armour isn't gonna make an efficient tank. And that's assuming Russia will be willing to risk it's relations with the US so much.

 

[ozscott75]

Originally posted by Switch625


And if he hadn't, you would have. That was pretty transparent.

Yes, it was transparent. That doesn't mean that it is untrue. Those are the reasons being given for an attack on Iraq. I was merely pointing out, in a less than subtle manner, that those reasons could be used as justification for attacks on many nations. So unless the US can come up with a more concrete reason for systematic, institutional genocide of the Iraqi people then there must be another (better?) way.

 

[amadeus]

You think it's genocide?

I think you need a healthy dose of reality, which, if we don't invade Iraq, will come in the form of an ICBM on the top of your house.

 

[Maj]

I think you need a healthy dose of reality, which, if we don't invade Iraq, will come in the form of an ICBM on the top of your house.

So unless the US can come up with a more concrete reason for systematic, institutional genocide of the Iraqi people then there must be another (better?) way.

Fear.

The Americans do not want a power in the Middle East because they know how very much they are hated by the Arab world and how very badly hurt they could be were more leverage given to it. America wants to avert another Cold War and gain a stronger foothold in the Middle East. Europe wants to avoid a Western led military conflict in the Middle East because they are have vested a great reliance on the area's oil. There's also to mention its proximity to the area.

One side is afraid doing something might hurt them. The other side is afraid that doing nothing might hurt them.

- Maj

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
You think it's genocide?

I think you need a healthy dose of reality, which, if we don't invade Iraq, will come in the form of an ICBM on the top of your house.

oh, so it's ICBMs now is it? Here i was thinking it was just normal nukes, but ICBMs makes a lot of difference.

IMHO the US found an excuse for war in afghanistan, and developed a taste for blood.

 

[IceBlaZe]

IMHO the US found an excuse for war in afghanistan, and developed a taste for blood.

The "US"?
Is it Bush? Bush and Ramsfeld? US - Powell?
The American nation?

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by bobgote
oh, so it's ICBMs now is it? Here i was thinking it was just normal nukes, but ICBMs makes a lot of difference.

IMHO the US found an excuse for war in afghanistan, and developed a taste for blood.

Oh, yeah, how come I didn't think about it - the attack on the WTC was just an American excuse

 

[bobgote]

The "US"?
Is it Bush? Bush and Ramsfeld? US - Powell?
The American nation?

Bush is the leader, sure he's crazy and a redneck, but the rest of the country seems to feel the same way.

Oh, yeah, how come I didn't think about it - the attack on the WTC was just an American excuse

Not what i said. I think america would've been justified in attacking terrorists, no doubt about it. They would've known from the start that war wouldn't get Osama for them. Why did they attack afghanistan tho? It was just convenient as far as I can see. Just as a note, i don't think they were wrong to do it, as afghanistan was obstructing them, but there were other means. And now they've seen their power in action, they want to take out everyone.

I think they were spoiling for war before the WTC incident anyway, that's what i meant by earlier quote. I'm not taking anything away from the tragedy that occurred. It was a tragic waste of human life, and america were right to seek out those who'd caused it. Hopefully this gives enough of my views.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by bobgote
Not what i said. I think america would've been justified in attacking terrorists, no doubt about it. They would've known from the start that war wouldn't get Osama for them. Why did they attack afghanistan tho? It was just convenient as far as I can see. Just as a note, i don't think they were wrong to do it, as afghanistan was obstructing them, but there were other means. And now they've seen their power in action, they want to take out everyone.

>>> The taliban harbored the terrorists protected them and was their ally. Even if the US could've done the same in "other means", which I have no idea how they could've, the taliban would still support other terror groups and will still be a major threat to American civilians, and therefore the whole purpose of the war will not be achieved.

I think they were spoiling for war before the WTC incident anyway, that's what i meant by earlier quote. I'm not taking anything away from the tragedy that occurred. It was a tragic waste of human life, and america were right to seek out those who'd caused it. Hopefully this gives enough of my views.

>>> Why do think they wanted war before sep 11th? If they wanted to fight the taliban why did they give them 40 million USD?

 

[God]

The people of the Middle East hate the US government and more specifically Bush, Cheney, Rumpsfeld and Powell. They don't know anything about the American people.

Its understandable that they hate the US governement and its foreign policy, because they are always screwing around in the ME.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by God
The people of the Middle East hate the US government and more specifically Bush, Cheney, Rumpsfeld and Powell. They don't know anything about the American people.

Its understandable that they hate the US governement and its foreign policy, because they are always screwing around in the ME.

Israel is an ally of the US.
Egypt and Jordan recieve massive aid from the US.
Saudi, Quwait and the UAE relly on the US for their protection (like in the gulf war).

 

[IceBlaZe]

Its understandable that they hate the US governement and its foreign policy, because they are always screwing around in the ME.

Here is another myth.
"Western imperialism screwed the ME".
Well, guess what, it was screwed anyway. Eastern Imperialism was just as bad as Western Imperialism, and the US didn't even colonize one bit of the Middle East.
I don't think it should be foreign to you the fact that a major power like the United States keeps it's interests in the Middle East safe and tries to protect it's citizens from the threat Anti-American terrorism breeded in the Middle East brings.
Read a book called "Empires of the Sand", by Efraim Karsh.
It's very interesting.

 

[bobgote]

GMan: I didn't say who they were wanting to fight, but it was just the vibe coming from the US.

And the US doesn't need to colonize, the worlds changed since the colonization days. The US plays a different game.

And I think the US has screwed around in the ME. It's one thing keeping interests, and another thing interfering in the affairs of other nations.

 

[IceBlaZe]

And I think the US has screwed around in the ME. It's one thing keeping interests, and another thing interfering in the affairs of other nations.

Interfearing with interim politics is what almost all countries who have their interests in foreign regions do.

Britain did it, France did it, Turkey did it, USA did it, China did it, Egypt did it.. The list goes on and on.
The US is no more mean, or less justified, than any other country.
Only it is more powerful.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


Interfearing with interim politics is what almost all countries who have their interests in foreign regions do.

Britain did it, France did it, Turkey did it, USA did it, China did it, Egypt did it.. The list goes on and on.
The US is no more mean, or less justified, than any other country.
Only it is more powerful.

I think the main difference here is that all other countries were acknowledged as trying to build an empire, whereas we don't see the US the same way.

 

[IceBlaZe]

I think the main difference here is that all other countries were acknowledged as trying to build an empire, whereas we don't see the US the same way.

Check again.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


Check again.

Please further define this "check again". I need to know how to reply.