Why must we invade Iraq? (no spam)

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
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.

How? If European Union lefties ran the White House, we'd still be "multi-laterally" negotiating with the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden, or risk... what? Diplomatic condemnation?

[fable]

Originally posted by smass
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.

@Smass, you've just raised an extremely emotive issue, and accused several people in this thread (presumably including myself) of holding attitudes that actually helped cause September 11th. I think you owe us an explanation for turning us into accomplices of terrorists, and I hope it's good.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by EMINEM
How?

Well, there is always my favourite method: assassination, but this was abolished by the Reagan administration. Or we could do what we did in Afghanistan and give one faction (ie-the Kurds) the weapons to wage their own insurrection. Or maybe Dubya's dad should have taken him out to begin with. Or maybe we could get Kofi Annan out of the Secretary General's office and show up on Iraq's doorstep with a couple of carrier battlegroups escorting some weapons inspectors to do the job they were supposed to do a decade ago. There are other alternatives to an invasion and occupation.

If European Union lefties ran the White House, we'd still be "multi-laterally" negotiating with the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden, or risk... what? Diplomatic condemnation?

I have seen no evidence directly linking Saddam Hussein to the 11 September attacks. If you have any, I'd like to see it (preferably in another thread).

[fable]

Originally posted by Eminem
How? If European Union lefties ran the White House, we'd still be "multi-laterally" negotiating with the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden, or risk... what? Diplomatic condemnation?

You mean Clinton didn't attempt to assassinate bin Ladan, and didn't launch preemptive strikes against two al-Quai'dah installations?

You mean Johnson never went to bat to stop what he believed was a Communist attempt to take over South Asia?

You mean Kennedy never stood up to the Soviets, and threatened to go to war over the installation of missiles in Cuba?

You mean Truman never took on a war in Korea over the complaints of his hawkish military commander, saying he'd beat back the Communists?

The most "liberal" US presidents (and some of 'em were very liberal) in the last 50 years have all jumped to defend national interests militarily if they felt the freedom of the US or its allies was threatened. And while we're on the subject...

The conservative Eisenhower made an international speech urging the Eastern bloc to rise up "against their Communist masters." When Hungary and Czechoslovakia did just that and the Soviets moved in tanks, the US didn't utter a sound, much less offer a single soldier in defense of freedom.

It might be helpful if we stop confusing moderate social/economic policies with an inadequacy to respond with guns--and conservative social/economic policies with an ability to do more than talk tough.

[Osiris]

Originally posted by fable


@Smass, you've just raised an extremely emotive issue, and accused several people in this thread (presumably including myself) of holding attitudes that actually helped cause September 11th. I think you owe us an explanation for turning us into accomplices of terrorists, and I hope it's good.

I also find these remarks offensive along with those of Eminem who seems to regard a number of us as "European Union Lefties"

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
There are other alternatives to an invasion and occupation.

Yeah, but not very good (or realistic) ones, IMO.

[Mr Sleep]

Two things:

1) Personal comments to smass and Eminem regarding their comments should be made over PM.

2) This debate is going nowhere fast, please keep civil.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by EMINEM
Yeah, but not very good (or realistic) ones, IMO.

Sure there; the problem is that none of them come with a lot of political capital, immediate results and a bounce in the polls. I believe that Dubya is posturing for the mid-term elections and that he is also trying to divert attention from the flagging economy, his poor domestic policy and his administration's reputation for being too close to Big Business, especially in the wake of the Enron/Anderson Consulting mess.

I also do not think that he is considering the long-term ramifications of an invasion of Iraq; I think Dubya wants the quick boost in popularity a successful war brings but he's forgetting that a long-drawn out war and occupation cost Lyndon Johnson his job. If we invade Iraq, it stands to reason that we will win easily and quickly. No one is debating that. However, what happens afterward?

The American military is already reeling from its post-Cold War personnel draw-downs and increased optempos. We aren't prepared to maintain an extended presence in a part of the world that is culturally and religiously so different from most Americans and current American doctrine. If we take out Saddam Hussein, are we doing ourselves a favour by installing someone else who will surely be overthrown because they are our puppet? Can we afford to further destabilise the region by introducing a new regime in the Persian Gulf? Would we be causing more problems by eliminating Saddam Hussein rather than simply containing him?

[fable]

@Sleep, don't jump a gun that hasn't been fired. Some accusations of support for the 9/11 terrorist activities have been stated here, and they need to be answered, here. They can't simply be allowed to stand as-is, in print. They are extremely offensive. While I don't think @Smass meant them to be, I think he needs to clarify exactly what he does mean, and here, in this thread. We can move on from there.

I do agree with you, however, that we all need to be very careful in respecting both the people we're talking to in this thread, and their ideas. Agreement isn't necessary. Comprehension is.

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by fable


You mean Clinton didn't attempt to assassinate bin Ladan, and didn't launch preemptive strikes against two al-Quai'dah installations?

Oh, c'mon, fable, be serious. Clinton half-heartedly lobbed a couple cruise missiles at a suspected Al-quada camp site and killed two camels for all his military posturing. So no, I think it was more a reflex motion to appear effectual following the USS Cole attack than any attempt to assassinate Bin Laden.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by EMINEM
Clinton half-heartedly lobbed a couple cruise missiles at a suspected Al-quada camp site and killed two camels for all his military posturing. So no, I think it was more a reflex motion to appear effectual following the USS Cole attack than any attempt to assassinate Bin Laden.

The cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan were on 20 August 1998, the USS Cole was bombed on 12 October 2000.

[fable]

Originally posted by EMINEM
Oh, c'mon, fable, be serious. Clinton half-heartedly lobbed a couple cruise missiles at a suspected Al-quada camp site and killed two camels for all his military posturing.

Two al-Qua'idah facilities, one that was suspected of generating chemical weapons, were completely destroyed. The only estimate of casualities at one of the sites, from the Sudanese government, put it in the neighborhood of several thousand people killed. Admittedly I wouldn't trust that government to speak straight unless they were paid to do so, but I do think that given the size of the destruction their estimate is more logical than your pair of camels.

No answer concerning Truman, Kennedy, or Johnson, all three arch-liberals? With respect, the willingness to use military force should never be determined ideologically. Like Khrushchev in the early 1960s, you're deciding the outcome of issues based on general perceptions of social and economic policy. It didn't work for him, and I don't think in this case it's working for you.

[Weasel]

Originally posted by 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.

Who can tell what is going on in George's mind...I can't even read my own wifes mind and I'm around her ..what 16 hours a day.



1. Pride. Something even a madman will have.
2. Revenge. A human trait.

Would have the Allies after WW1 pressed so hard on Germany if they could have known doing so would have lead to the start of WW2?

I cannot read the future, events can unfold in millions of different directions.

I can see events as they stand now.

Continued Sanctions: Meaning Saddam gets to starve his people and have a scapegoat to blame the starvation on..the US. While these sanctions are helping Saddam starve his people, Saddam is taking what money he can ($25,000 per suicide bomber) and paying "freedom fighters" to blowup non-combatants.

Take the Sanction off: This willl relive the scapegoat US. As I cannot see into the future, I cannot say for sure Saddam would then rebuild his forces...nor can I say he will then threaten his neighbors. (Wonder why I put Pride and revenge up above?)

Attempt a Coup: Will Europe lead the way? If not any and I mean any coup started by the US will only lead to even more trouble in the region. The US has already once lead a group to believe they will be backed, then bowed to pressure from the other Arab countries to back off. Any group now will have to be complete fools to believe the US will back them in Iraq. As I said repeatedly, I cannot read the future, maybe the US saw backing this group would do more harm..I don't know, but I do know starting to back and then stopping will lose you support.

Military action: The unknown, the unseen... I'm pretty sure it will take the threat of Saddam out...but what will follow. I for one don't want to have to pay to rebuild Iraq...and if after a war it is not rebuilt, it will become a Afganhistan, a breeding ground for more terrorist.

(More later...maybe)

[Weasel]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Or maybe we could get Kofi Annan out of the Secretary General's office and show up on Iraq's doorstep with a couple of carrier battlegroups escorting some weapons inspectors to do the job they were supposed to do a decade ago.

The main reason I don't believe in the UN. Enforcement of Sanctions.

[smass]

"@Smass, you've just raised an extremely emotive issue, and accused several people in this thread (presumably including myself) of holding attitudes that actually helped cause September 11th"

@Fable - I did not intend to insinuate that your personal opinions or anyone elses were directly responsible for 9/11. I am not some zealot miliary hawk looking to use emotional impact of 9/11 to support my case. That being said I feel that I do owe you an explanation as to what I meant with my comments. So here goes (you asked for it ):

In my opinion the PC political and diplomatic climate that the 90s produced led many leaders of the free world to underestimate the capabilities and motivations of certain fanatics (ie.Al Queda). As a result we (the USA) were ill prepared to stave off the events of 9/11. The fact that the attack came off as such as surprise supports this view. Leaders of the US as well as other countries prior to 9/11 could not conceive that such a thing could happen.

My comment specifically was "The rose colored glasses view that many of you seem to take on this forum is what facilitated the events of Sept 11. " This was not an attack on you personally - my opinion is that when you make a statement comparing Saddam to a common thug you are underestimating him in much the same way that U.S. leaders underestimated Bin Laden. If we could go back in time to before 9/11 and had the perspective that the events of that day have left us with - we would have done something about it before the tragedy happened.

I look at the Iraq situation in much the same way - if we have intelligence information that indicates that Saddam has, or is close to having, access of weapons of mass destruction - that he can use himself or more likely supply to any number of terrorist groups that he has ties to - we must act - we must not allow another even more devastating tragedy to occur.

Sorry for highjacking your thread Mr. Sleep - but my answer to your original question is above.

[RandomThug]

Erg

In a perfect world there are no evil men. Alas we live in troubled times, sure it seems only perfect for dubya to invade Iraq and it seems as if he is doing it meerly for political or monetary motives.

You seem to all forget the words spouted by my President after we were so vicously attacked a year ago. Your with us or against us, sure its a big brother (not in the 1984 sense rather the beat you up brother) attitude but the fact remains the same. We are at war with terrorists and terror and Sadam is an evil man. Sure he is just a thug (not common one bit) and is most likely not a threat to the US at this time (god only knows in the future) taking him out now would be a grateful thing to the world. By him I mean his rule (his son included). Smass made a comment that botherd a few of you, but I back his statement with this clarity first.

America is a target. Always has been. Only recently has the threat been so real, so now we respond with force. People tend to wish that war didnt exist, but the fact is men like Sadam do exist and as long as evil men exist good men must stand up and fight them.

it is not the evil of man we must fear the most, but the indifference of good men.

thug

[fable]

Originally posted by smass
My comment specifically was "The rose colored glasses view that many of you seem to take on this forum is what facilitated the events of Sept 11. " This was not an attack on you personally - my opinion is that when you make a statement comparing Saddam to a common thug you are underestimating him in much the same way that U.S. leaders underestimated Bin Laden. If we could go back in time to before 9/11 and had the perspective that the events of that day have left us with - we would have done something about it before the tragedy happened.

@Smass, thanks for the reply. I never thought it was personally directed at me, but I did perceive it as an emotional timebomb waiting for just the right reader who might take it very personally, indeed. It's not the kind of accusation I suggest throwing about, unless you really want to hurt people and get them to try and hurt you.

As far as Hussein is concerned, did you read my response to you, earlier? I don't consider Hussein as a common thug in regards to power, but in his mentality. He's not a Hitler, or a Stalin. He could (and does) inflict great suffering, but he's neither a psychopath nor a megalomaniac, IMO: his past actions have illustrated no qualities of either. Remember, he invaded another country only after he thought he had implicit US approval. (*That* particular US ambassador was quickly retired.)

If we are looking for psychopaths who are destroying their nations, look no further for an example than Zimbabwe's Mukabe, who incites his followers to acts of torture against his political opponents on a massive scale. And if we want to see a megalomaniac who should never be allowed within the same room as a loaded weapon, consider Uzbekistan's Karimov, busily putting up statues of himself on every street corner in Tashkent, and demanding of his puppet legislature that they rename the months of the year to include one with his own name.

If we are to invade another nation based on suspicion of chemical and biological weapons, why not go after North Korea? We have plenty of evidence that NK is working on building a nuclear arsenal. We also know that the country follows an incredibly restrictive cult of leadership. They have a much larger and more dangerous army than Hussein's. This whole Hussein scenario doesn't make any sense, IMO.

Nor would I suggest comparing bin Ladan with Hussein. They are not the same, nor are any of their actions similar. bin Ladan is a fundamentalist fanatic. Hussein was never religious, much less a fanatic, and only played the Islam card when it looked set to bring him a little sympathy from his Arab neighbors.

[HighLordDave]

Re: Erg

Originally posted by RandomThug
America is a target. Always has been. Only recently has the threat been so real, so now we respond with force. People tend to wish that war didnt exist, but the fact is men like Sadam do exist and as long as evil men exist good men must stand up and fight them.

Would you have a situation for the United States in the Persian Gulf similar to the Israeli-Palestinean arena where the two sides hate each other so much and are so consumed by vengeance that they can only think of ways to hurt each other more?

With all of his rhetoric, what has Dubya done to get to the root cause of why people around the world don't like Americans? Nothing; if anything, he's made people like us even less. What would an American invasion of Iraq accomplish if the goal is to stop a threat against the United States? Certainly, it will remove Saddam Hussein from being a threat, but it will create another generation of people who hate us and will be just as content to see us burn and die has he is.

[EMINEM]

Two al-Qua'idah facilities, one that was suspected of generating chemical weapons, were completely destroyed. The only estimate of casualities at one of the sites, from the Sudanese government, put it in the neighborhood of several thousand people killed. Admittedly I wouldn't trust that government to speak straight unless they were paid to do so, but I do think that given the size of the destruction their estimate is more logical than your pair of camels.

Since you yourself don't trust your sources, there's really no point in me responding to this.

With respect, the willingness to use military force should never be determined ideologically. Like Khrushchev in the early 1960s, you're deciding the outcome of issues based on general perceptions of social and economic policy. It didn't work for him, and I don't think in this case it's working for you.

??? You assume waaaaay too much.

[fable]

Since you yourself don't trust your sources, there's really no point in me responding to this.

LOL! I just stated that a very large chemical warfare plant was destroyed in the Sudan, and that there was significant loss of life, as well as the destruction of a major al-Quia'idah installation. I never stated the Sudanese government was my source. Mine was the US State Department.

Now, what was your source for the destruction in those two raids of only two camels?