Why must we invade Iraq? (no spam)

[HighLordDave]

Really. Could someone please explain this to me? I have no idea why Dubya wants to invade Iraq when no one else in the world thinks it's a good idea.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

A re-election bid. History shows that leaders in times of war usually have higher chances of getting re-elected, and the domestic front is not his strong point, so he's doing it as an attempt to retain office.
And to continue Daddy's war against Iraq, and to get more access to middle east oil supplies.

If you want the official reasoning, I don't know.

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
no one else in the world thinks it's a good idea.

I hope you don't mean this literally, cuz otherwise it would be wrong.

[Mr Sleep]

Because Saddam Hussein is.... oh sorry...

A legitimate reason is difficult to find, most people are aware that Husseins son who will succeed him is the same kind of dictator his father is. Hussein is also likely to die soon since he has cancer, so this mission is clearly not to take out Hussein.

The only reason i can see is as Ode says; for the oil supplys. Other than that it seems kind of pointless.

[HighLordDave]

@EMINEM:
Well, not literally, but we have no foreign support and a minimal amount of domestic support; hell, even the Joint Chiefs of Staff think it's a bad idea. Outside of Dubya's inner circle of hardline advisors, no one thinks it's a good idea.

If you think invading Iraq is a good idea, please explain your reasoning to me.

@Ode to a Grasshopper:
If it's a rel-election bid, why is he gearing up for it at the mid-term elections?

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
@EMINEM:
Well, not literally, but we have no foreign support and a minimal amount of domestic support; hell, even the Joint Chiefs of Staff think it's a bad idea. Outside of Dubya's inner circle of hardline advisors, no one thinks it's a good idea.

If you think invading Iraq is a good idea, please explain your reasoning to me.

@Ode to a Grasshopper:
If it's a rel-election bid, why is he gearing up for it at the mid-term elections?

Just a second here, the Australian govt. is backing Dubyah's invasion 100%. The Australian people are most dipleased with this (and not just because the govt. is increasing taxes for the elderly and disabled, and reducing subsidaries on medicine to pay for their support in this venture), and we don't actually have that much of a military force to offer aid with anyway, but our leaders are 'volunteering' our support anyway.

@HLD-Beats me, but I suspect it'll drag out for a lot longer then just the mid-term elections. If that fails and Iraq falls sooner than expected there's always more countries to declare war on.
Cuba, for one.

[HighLordDave]

Is the Australian government really backing Dubya, or is that just their public face? The British are also publicly showing support for Dubya, but are privately telling folks in the administration that it's a bad idea.

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
@EMINEM:
Well, not literally, but we have no foreign support and a minimal amount of domestic support; hell, even the Joint Chiefs of Staff think it's a bad idea. Outside of Dubya's inner circle of hardline advisors, no one thinks it's a good idea.

Well, we have Israel's support to oust Hussein, and a majority (mid-to low fifties) of Americans believe a regime change in Iraq is in order. Personally, I'm undecided about the whole mess, but I am leaning towards Cheney's pre-emptive strike argument.

[frogus]

I'm sure he has a greater plan than we can see. I'm sure he isn't just thinking 'Well, I'm bored, let's bomb Iraq'. This is the first stage of a large plan, probably a 'cleansing' kind of idea, routing out 'evil' throughout Asia. I would put a strong bet on the scheme climaxing around 2004...

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Is the Australian government really backing Dubya, or is that just their public face? The British are also publicly showing support for Dubya, but are privately telling folks in the administration that it's a bad idea.

Our Prime Minister is an incredible lapdog to Dubyah, he seems determined to actively support the Bush Administration any way possible, even when it goes against Australia's best interests.
Tam knows more about the most recent example than I do, I believe John Howard sold out our farmers in some way.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by EMINEM
Well, we have Israel's support to oust Hussein, and a majority (mid-to low fifties) of Americans believe a regime change in Iraq is in order.

Israel has to support us; we give them Apaches and F-16s. There are other ways to get a regime change in Iraq short of a full scall invasion and occupation.

Personally, I'm undecided about the whole mess, but I am leaning towards Cheney's pre-emptive strike argument.

"Pre-emptive"? Against what? Saddam Hussein has been sitting there for over a decade and hasn't ventured out of his little fiefdom, much like Moamar Khaddafi. However, unlike Khaddafi, Hussein keeps running his mouth. That's the only reason why we pay any attention to him; he's like the little yip dog that won't shut up but he owner won't slap it a time or two. Saddam Hussein will never launch a direct attack on the United States because he knows if he does, we'll kill him. And he loves himself more than he hates us.

[fable]

Originally posted by EMINEM


Well, we have Israel's support to oust Hussein, and a majority (mid-to low fifties) of Americans believe a regime change in Iraq is in order. Personally, I'm undecided about the whole mess, but I am leaning towards Cheney's pre-emptive strike argument.

Desiring "A regime change in Iraq" does not automatically imply desiring "an invasion from a foreign power." I want a regime change in Washington, but I would not welcome an invasion to achieve this. If I were polled, I would have wanted Hussein out, as well: not because he's Hitler (as Cheney and Rumsfeld would seem to have us poor beknighted simpletons believe) and not because he's a common thug (which he is, but many rulers are as bad or worse), but because he's a ruler without vision in a land where vision is required to join three distinct cultures and geographical entities (Sunni, Shi'a, Kurds) and find solutions to endemic social and economic problems.

However, there is a great deal of difference between wishing a new leader on a nation and invading that nation. If we sanction the use of force to remove a ruler and announce that this is because of moral turpitude, then we appear as hypocrites on the world (and domestic) stage, visibly propping up a numbers of rulers for a variety of reasons who are guilty of crimes no less than Hussein.

[smass]

Fable - I take issue with the characterization of Saddam as a "common thug". Lets not give this maniac any slack - the comparison of Saddam to Hitler is much more accurate - this guy is a murdering scum bag - the dude who snatched my mother in laws purse is a "common thug".

If Sadam has the tech and resources to build weapons of mass destruction - this is a problem that we must deal with - The rose colored glasses view that many of you seem to take on this forum is what facilitated the events of Sept 11.

These people (Sadam, Bin Laden, Al Queda, et all) are the most dangerous people in the world - they are enemies of all free people - and yes Ode - that should include Australia.

Invading Iraq is a an extreme solution to an extreme problem. If we have enough intelligence information to back up the need for this extreme move then I am all for it.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by smass
If Sadam has the tech and resources to build weapons of mass destruction

I do not doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. He has demonstrated that he does; he has used chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds. I also do not doubt that Saddam Hussein isn't a nice guy.

What I doubt is Saddam Hussein's willingness to use his weapons of mass destruction on the United States. I simply do not believe he will do it. To characterise him as "common thug" is a little misleading, but in the company of other despotic leaders, Saddam Hussein does fall into that category. He has none of the megalomaniacal tendencies of Hitler, nor does he possess the paranoid psychosis of Stalin. Hussein is a two-bit dictator who happens to be sitting on a lot of oil. If he were out in the middle of the sahara or on an island in the south Pacific, we wouldn't care what he is up to.

My other contention is that an invasion of Iraq is one of the most undesirable courses of action the United States can pursue. An invasion will not only mean a military assault but a military occupation in a region that already doesn't like us (except when we're buying oil).

The American foreign policy for the middle east and Persian Gulf has always been to make sure that no one becomes too powerful. We've manage to keep everyone in check, including Saddam Hussein. An American incursion and occupation will disrupt the fragile balance of power in the region and will cost us billions of dollars and the lives of American soldiers in what appears to be a move based in politics instead of sound foreign policy.

- The rose colored glasses view that many of you seem to take on this forum is what facilitated the events of Sept 11.

EDIT-Mr Sleep beat me to it, but if you would like to start a thread on what was behind the 11 September attacks, I'd be happy to take on the merits of your argument there.

[Mr Sleep]

Everyone, this debate does not concern the events surrounding 9/11, there is no purpose to starting that debate in this thread since it concerns Hussein not 9/11. Comments directed to me over PM please.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

To be frank, Hussein is nowhere near a Hitler. He's neither intelligent (and intelligence is not always a good thing) nor powerful enough to be compared to Hitler.
He is, as Fable says, a common thug, more powerful than the thug who snatches your mother in law's purse, true, but a common thug nonetheless.
As far as weapons of mass destruction goes, they're not a problem if he never uses them. And, let's face it, he's no match for the sheer military might of the US, and has to be aware of that. If he dared attack any 'free nation' he'd be crushed by the (greater numbers of) US weapons of mass destruction. So it seems to me that the rose-coloured glasses that are so prominent here are in fact entirely justified in this matter.
As far as the most dangerous people in the world go, far better the demon you know than the one you don't. At least the world has it's eye on Hussein, and he's kept in check through the knowledge that if he makes a hostile move he'll be crushed.

[fable]

Originally posted by smass
Fable - I take issue with the characterization of Saddam as a "common thug". Lets not give this maniac any slack - the comparison of Saddam to Hitler is much more accurate - this guy is a murdering scum bag - the dude who snatched my mother in laws purse is a "common thug".

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying his crimes are those of a common thug. I mean that his intellect is that of a common thug. For example:

When faced with a desire to increase national revenues and the security of his hold on power, Hussein didn't think of internal structural developments, or bringing in the two large cultural groups that have been traditionally kept from power in Iraq (the Shi'a and Kurds). No, he invaded his neighbor.

He has always maintained a hold over power through a network of informants and a secret police that operate in an extra-legal fashion. Most governments have at least the decency to clothe their need to stifle dissent behind legal/economic trappings. Hussein doesn't bother.

In other words, Hussein's mindset is that of the leader of a gang in control of a turf. He cannot think outside the box. He cannot perceive ways to harness the strengths of those within Iraq that are not part of his gang.

But he falls far, far short of, say, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, who has addressed mass rallies of thousands of his "war veterans" and told them to club to death white "slavers" who are simply farmers--and "necklace" them. The necklace in question being soaked in gasoline, set around the victim's neck, and then set alight.

And how about the "People's Republic" of China? Do you know that the Tibetans are now officially a minority in their own capitol? The government has been zealously following a policy of de-culturing Tibet, a nation they invaded and have repopulated with Chinese villages. Hussein bombs the Kurds. The Chinese government deports entire Tibetan villages to concentration camps, and replaces them with nationals.

Next to these (and other, similar) examples, Hussein is simply an overgrown thug, whose only original idea is a belief that he's fit to rule anything larger than a taxi cab.

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by smass
The rose colored glasses view that many of you seem to take on this forum is what facilitated the events of Sept 11.

My thoughts exactly.

[C Elegans]

A majority of people in the US as well as Europe also think the regimes of China, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Saudi Arabia and many other countries, are undesirable. Like Fable points out, this is not and should not be equal to desiring a military invasion of those countries.

Many countries, including the US, but also Israel, China, India, etc have weapons of mass destruction. Does one countries access to mass destruction weapon give another country with mass destruction weapons right to invade each other? The US i acting world police when it suits them and they have finacial or political gains from it, but often turns away when it comes to large scale, global humanitarian issues. The image of the US as the saviours of the so called free world is merely a disgusting propaganda slogan, and I find it depressing that some people seem to believe in it.

[fable]

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
As far as the most dangerous people in the world go, far better the demon you know than the one you don't. At least the world has it's eye on Hussein, and he's kept in check through the knowledge that if he makes a hostile move he'll be crushed.

I think that's a very good point. We could have been faced with a change in regime after the Gulf War, for example, and some smooth-talking megalomaniac who let in all the inspectors the UN cared to send; all the while amassing enough weapons through extra-legal channels to launch a massive strike against yet another part of the "Axis of Evil," Iran. Or, we could have had a ruler who, like Fidel Castro, played the US for idiots, and spouted all the right Washingtonian nonsense until he was in power and financially secure. I could easily see an Iraqi ruler who played the US' game, became a "friend," rehabilitated his country, then turned around and beat Iran into the dust. Hussein isn't intelligent enough for all this. He's just smart enough to taunt his enemies, and I'd much rather have someone like that in charge of an oil-rich nation than a clever Machiavel.