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

[nixon]

Why use their "valuable" weapons against Israel, when they know that we're coming to get them and to rip their country apart?

Trust me, Saddam will use some sort of nasty weapon, when we stand on his doorstep, this is a "natural" response when you're dealing with such people.

Saddam is just a freak who needs to be dealt with the sooner the better, before he obtains the nuclear capability. He must be dealt with, with the use of extreme authority, something which requires a campaign no smaller than Desert Storm.

Now, do cease this sorry rant, there's no discussion anymore and the U.S. will attack. Period.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by AVN
If the USA attacks Iraq, chances are great that Iraq will send some missiles to Israel. And when Iraq is in despair it's eventual possible they will use biological or chemical weapons against Israel.

So for that reason isn't it better that the USA will not attack Iraq ?

I prefer to be attacked with chimical weapons today than with nuclear weapons in a few years from now. If you'll look at other places in the world where bio/chimical weapons were used, they are very ineffective in open areas - and scuds can't spread them in closed areas, ofcource. I think a loss of a few dozen civilians is the less deadly option, when the other option is to risk millions by allowing him to develop nukes.

 

[Biologic]

I have to agree with Jimcat.

Going into Iraq to "uproot the evil" is no good if a greater evil steps in afterwards. One thing that should be looked at is the well being of the Iraqi civilians. One possible result of the war might be a complete fracture of the country resulting in power struggles between warlords. Has that really helped? To many people on these forums have a tendancy to oversimplify the issue. The stability of the middle-east is more than likely to be effected, resulting in further resentment of America. Lets not forget the machinations of al-Quaeda and other terrorist groups. What of the possible back lash?

This is Americas war, as such they have a responsability to coordinate this with more than just the welfare of themelves in mind. Another display of Americas disregard for the U.N.

One thing is certain, Saddam Hussien is no fool. He is most dangerous when backed into a corner as he proved during the gulf war. If defeat is inevitable America could be responsible for starting something more devestating to the middle-east than anything else current.

 

[IceBlaZe]

I have to agree with Jimcat.

Going into Iraq to "uproot the evil" is no good if a greater evil steps in afterwards.

That's the responsibility of the Americans to make sure it won't happen. If it will, it will only make the war redundant and their efforts to vanish, and leaving the Middle East where it was or even in a worse, more destabilized, position.

One thing that should be looked at is the well being of the Iraqi civilians.

Not necessarily. Some countries are ****ed up, what the war should do is bring democracy, choice to the people and improve in situation. It doesn't mean America should start paying money to families to make them wealthier. The welfare policies are up to the New democratic regime which will come inplace.

One possible result of the war might be a complete fracture of the country resulting in power struggles between warlords.

I doubt that. That's not the political situation of Iraq. You can't compare it with the interim political situation that was in Somalia because it is not the same.
A possibility is that if Iraq gets divided into different regions based on ethnicities, turkey might invade the Kurdish country and if a region will be created bordering Jordan and a despot will arise he might invade Jordan to destabilize it.
But it's all worse case assumptions incase everything gets screwed up - As far as I know an asteroid could hit earth a week from now and kill us all.
The fact that bad things might happen doesn't mean the US shouldn't act.

Has that really helped? To many people on these forums have a tendancy to oversimplify the issue. The stability of the middle-east is more than likely to be effected, resulting in further resentment of America.

There are higher chances that the Stability of the middle east will be improved instead of hurt.
Iraq is a destabilizing factor.
Leaving Iraq on it's way for nuclear weapons will be more destabilizing than attacking it.
Read why in the article I posted.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Biologic
Going into Iraq to "uproot the evil" is no good if a greater evil steps in afterwards. One thing that should be looked at is the well being of the Iraqi civilians. One possible result of the war might be a complete fracture of the country resulting in power struggles between warlords. Has that really helped? To many people on these forums have a tendancy to oversimplify the issue. The stability of the middle-east is more than likely to be effected, resulting in further resentment of America. Lets not forget the machinations of al-Quaeda and other terrorist groups. What of the possible back lash?

>>> What warlords? Incase you haven't noticed Saddam killed anyone who was a possible threat to him - the only guns and only militias in Iraq are within the Iraqi army. And what will al qaida do they aren't doing anyway? Attack the US?

This is Americas war, as such they have a responsability to coordinate this with more than just the welfare of themelves in mind. Another display of Americas disregard for the U.N.

>>> What does the UN has to do with it?

One thing is certain, Saddam Hussien is no fool. He is most dangerous when backed into a corner as he proved during the gulf war. If defeat is inevitable America could be responsible for starting something more devestating to the middle-east than anything else current.

>>> In the gulf war he sent scuds to Israel, the only man killed died of a cardia arrest and all missiles did less worth of damage than their cost. At the same time his armies were crushed by the Americans (at the end of the war the US lost 300 soldiers, Iraq lost over 100,000). It's not danerous, it's pathetic.

 

[gerryandersson]

rmsharpe, it is cuit easy for the US to folow the laws THEY
have made and can break if they whant to.
Theese laws are also formd in a whay so that the
US will not lose their super power status, and
to prevent other nations to get it

Besids, the US is not god's best child ether.
The US have fout one civil war and to a sertin
extent one world war
fore the rights of black people, but don't
give it to them.
The comunists vere not well treted ether.
Homosexuals are not alowd in the army.
And most of the "western" nations have abolisht
the death penelty.
And if somone farts and they diss like it
they threten to invade.

I have nothing aginst the US people, but some
times the goverment don't akt werry democratic and nice.

 

[Biologic]

We all have the right to voice our views here yet at the end of the day no-one can be 100% sure on anything (more or less). Only time will tell what is really destined to happen. However I think that America should have finished what it started along time ago. I just hope the Americans and any other forces committed do not forget why they began the battle. Taking on the role of the aggressor in the name of peace does not sit well with me.

 

[ozscott75]

Originally posted by G-Man

Oh yeah, saving a few millions in Israel and a few millions in Iraq from a nuclear warfare between the two countries is a terrbile thing

If you want protection from the US defence forces I suggest that you disband the IDF and apply at the embassy to be the next state in the union.

The US most definitely should not go to war just because some people in Israel want them to.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by ozscott75
It's funny how a number of US posters deride Saddam for ignoring sanctions and international law and use this as a basis for invasion when the US itself feels free to pick and choose which international laws it wil adhere to.

Hear Hear!

Originally posted by CurtSibling
I see him as a brash and corrupt man.
Who is capable of dragging a great nation into disaster...

Same. I'm worried about what he's capable of doing. Hopefully the rest of the US government will temper his actions.

I think the US's best bet, is if they want to make some action happen in Iraq, is to support a revolt. Anything else will have consequences on the international arena. I wouldn't mind my country going to war if iraq instigates a war against israel tho (I think the same would be said by most)

 

[IceBlaZe]

If you want protection from the US defence forces I suggest that you disband the IDF and apply at the embassy to be the next state in the union.

The US most definitely should not go to war just because some people in Israel want them to

*Cough* ALLY *Cough*

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by ozscott75
If you want protection from the US defence forces I suggest that you disband the IDF and apply at the embassy to be the next state in the union.

The US most definitely should not go to war just because some people in Israel want them to.

No, nut Israel is the US's ally. Just like the US commited to protect europe during the cold war when they were in danger now they protect Israel, up to a certain extent ofcource. Also, Israel is in a lot of ways America's stronghold in the ME, and if Israel won't be protected by the US arabs will prefer to trust in themselves and not in the US, leading to more arab and muslim nationalism and terrorism. Would you prefer it to be like in DS when the US invaded only after Iraq took over one of their allies (whice was BTW a much more distanced ally)?
This reason isn't the only reason for the attack, but it's certainly one of them.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by newfangle
There are two reasons why an invasion would take place.
1) Oil- no need to explain, Americans are oil-mongers

Yep, as usual, death to America. Why do you hate the winner so much? I admit, Americans are somewhat arrogant, and they are also hypocritical, but no more or less than the people of any other nation. I don't think either of these things is what fuels your unreasoning hatred, I think it is something much deeper and darker than that. You admire their greatness, but at the same time you envy it because it is something that you do not possess.

Originally posted by newfangle
2) Retribution. Saddam put on a contract on Big Bush's head, and now little chimp Bush is seeking revenge.

And because of that envy, rooted in admiration, you seek to destroy or diminish the things that make America a great power.

America has self rule, so you claim the rulers they choose are venal and foolish, and perhaps they are, but again, no more so than any nation's.

America has a strong economy, even when it is troubled as it is today, so you try to diminish it by demanding that they place the environment that you cared little for in the past ahead of their people.

Americans have a strong sense of national identity and pride, so you call them imperialist tyrants, convienently forgetting tyrannical Europe's imperialist history.

America has a strong military, and a grossly unfair advantage against any nation or alliance of nations, so you criticize their every use of that military, even when you know that their motives are pure, and their heart at least is in the right place. Certainly, it took them long enough to get their hearts there, and it had to be made personal for them to act, but now they are there. Let them act you fool, it's for your good too.

Originally posted by newfangle
The ONLY casus belli the US has for an invasion is for the Kurds. But since no one seems to care about them, the US officially has no reason for an invasion.

Yes, you are right of course. Saddam is a gentle man, kindly and wise, who has never once demonstrated a desire for power or a hint of corruption in his noble mien.

Originally posted by newfangle
Now, there are some who believe that Iraq will be constructing nuclear arms. This may be true, but they pose no threat. Saddam is staying in power for Saddam. If he nukes something, his country turns into glass and his rule will end.

Hoo-boy, that's a good one!! Man, you can crack a joke...
Egad!! You're serious!!
Saddam wants all of Islam under his dominion. Not because he gives one fart in a hurricane for Islam, but because it has a whole lot of people in it. He knows, KNOWS, for a fact, that the first ostensibly Muslim nation to take out Israel will be the de facto leader of the entire Muslim world, and he is doing everything in his power to beat Iran to nuclear armament. He is very, VERY close to reching that goal, and he will announce reaching it within the hour of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, the West Bank, and much of Trans-Jordan being converted into air pollution. He will be deep underground in a bunker(or airborne in disguise on a commercial flight) when he makes that announcement(taped in advance, and thanks a ton Osama for the idea), and not give one fig for what happens to the tent-dwellers living above him when he does, because when he emerges from his hidey-hole, it will be as king-for-life of Islam, and if you even doubt that that is exactly what Islam will declare him, you are a flat-out fool.

 

[IceBlaZe]

To all those who think Saddam is not a loony
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm

 

[Biologic]

Now I remember why I don't like to get involved in these discusions! The usual conflicts between patriotic zealots (some but not all blind to finer issues) and those that hate America with a passion so deep it takes up a huge part of their lives. Oh dear. It would seem politics also has the ability to bring out the worst in people. Just remember people. Its unlikely to affect the majority of people posting here anyway.

 

[nixon]

Originally posted by newfangle


Why sir, you indeed may have the response from bleeding heart/communist (these things seem to be the only things right-wingers call me).

No
No
No

There are two reasons why an invasion would take place.
1) Oil- no need to explain, Americans are oil-mongers
2) Retribution. Saddam put on a contract on Big Bush's head, and now little chimp Bush is seeking revenge.

The ONLY casus belli the US has for an invasion is for the Kurds. But since no one seems to care about them, the US officially has no reason for an invasion.


Now, there are some who believe that Iraq will be constructing nuclear arms. This may be true, but they pose no threat. Saddam is staying in power for Saddam. If he nukes something, his country turns into glass and his rule will end. [/QUOTE


Was!! Hast du aus dem Klog getrunken?

**** the Kurds, they can take care of themselves, in fact, they've even proposed that the U.S. can land in Northern Iraq on their airfields. The casus belli is and has always been WMD. Saddam has been messing with them for a long time, and has, in 1990 been on the brink of developing his first nuclear bomb.

Saddam is and has always been a threat to the stability in the Middle East, thus removal is a neccesity. The man is sick, and has repeatedly shown his wilingness to use weapons of mass destruction, an example would be when he in 1984 used mustard gas against bound human waves of Irani children numbering the tens of thousands, and the use of nerve in the town of Halabja agaínst the Kurds. He is the only man to have authorized the use of chemical weapons since World War I. Saddam plays a game, a game that the United States has been involved in for over 20 years, and Saddam is acting according to his needs and wishes, even if that means using WMD against Israel or U.S. troops in a potential invasion. He sees himself as the sole and true leader of the pan-Arabic cause, sitting on large quantities of oil, and seeks the destruction of Israel.

But, sigh, that's what you can expect from a communist like you, "That man has, I repeat, good intentions. He poses no dangers, whatsoever, when he acquires nuclear weapons, trust me!"

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
To all those who think Saddam is not a loony
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm

I urge everyone to read this article. Carefully. Twice if you have to. Saddam Hussein is a nutcase. He and reality do not intersect. Truly, words fail me to properly describe him. All I can say is this: anyone who expects Saddam Hussein to act in a rational manner is also out of touch with reality.

 

[amadeus]

Another interesting fact: when Saddam Hussein saw "The Terminator" -- he got scared out of his wits because he had thought the U.S. had actually been developing 'terminators'

 

[ozscott75]

Originally posted by G-Man


No, nut Israel is the US's ally. Just like the US commited to protect europe during the cold war when they were in danger now they protect Israel, up to a certain extent ofcource. Also, Israel is in a lot of ways America's stronghold in the ME, and if Israel won't be protected by the US arabs will prefer to trust in themselves and not in the US, leading to more arab and muslim nationalism and terrorism. Would you prefer it to be like in DS when the US invaded only after Iraq took over one of their allies (whice was BTW a much more distanced ally)?
This reason isn't the only reason for the attack, but it's certainly one of them.

I never said that the US shouldn't defend Israel if Israel is attacked. I said that the US has no right to invade Iraq just because the people of Israel would like it.

 

[amadeus]

We're going to invade because we'd like it.

 

[ozscott75]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
We're going to invade because we'd like it.

Good, for all I care you can turn Iraq into a parking lot, dig a big ditch around Saudi Arabia and fill it with radioactive waste while you're there.

While you're at it, smack down the naughty Israeli and Palestinian children and tell them to play nice.

Just don't look for a pat on the back and a hearty 'well done'.

If the US wants to invade, invade away. Don't sit there and tell the rest of the world nothing and then act suprised when they ask for more details.

No-one is going to stand in your way, but no-one will give you any respect if you don't give them any.