Why must we invade Iraq? (no spam)

[RandomThug]

@HLD

Alright Im going to lower my defenses right now and be completely honest, Dubya hurts my Patriatic bone. I want to say "Yeah we need to kill sadam and then go after N. Korea." but part of me finds His reasons... blurred. Sure I do honestly believe that Sadam needs to be out of power, and any who seek to put fear and pain into the lives of others need to be ousted as well. I believe that evil is a constant and war is inevitable but I dont believe in our current presidents actions. its a blurry mess.

I will speak truth when I say I wish I could see message boards of people PRO anything America, rather its always CON.

I dont know i havent had enough coffee...

thug

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by 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?

1. You never mentioned the US State Department in your previous post, but you certainly did mention the government of Sudan.

2. RE: Deceased Dromedaries. Sarcasm doesn't translate easily over the internet. My point was, and I'm sure you didn't miss it, was that the Bubba's attempts to eliminate Bin Laden were militarily pathetic, ineffectual, and more for political points than any sincere desire to wipe out terrorrism.

[Gwalchmai]

I think that Mr. Bush doesn’t really want to go to war with Saddam. I think he simply wants to rattle his sabers enough to buy support for his fellow Republicans during the mid-term elections. I think he will ultimately base his decision about weather or not to invade on public opinion polls. He and his administration may want to get the American people’s dander up just long enough to win a few Republican seats, then they will let everything die down until 2004, when the specter of Saddam will again be brought before us. I think he will let opinion polls dictate his actions. If a majority of voters ultimately desire a non-invasion solution, Mr. Bush will probably, miraculously, ‘see the light’. If voters start thirsting for blood, he might actually start the war. That is the part that worries me.

I would like to see a more peaceful solution take place. In my opinion, I think the United States wields a tremendous amount of economic and cultural influence. If an American presence in Iraq were to be increased, not just through weapons inspections*, but also through greater trade relations, aid and educational programs, etc., then fundamental changed in their attitude toward the US might be achieved. Of course, this would have to be a long-term course of action with no immediate short-term benefits, which is why the US wouldn’t do such a thing, considering every President needs to show results within 4 years’ time. But wouldn’t improving the image of the US abroad ultimately be the best, safest, and most peaceful solution to solving the threat of terrorism? Why would anyone attack us if everyone liked us?

*I recently heard that similar weapons inspection programs were forced on Germany after WWI, and that Germany stonewalled the inspections in much the same way as Saddam. I think those inspections were halted altogether after about 6 years. And, of course, WWII happened a few decades later. Very curious, I say.

[Weasel]

Re: @HLD

Originally posted by RandomThug


I will speak truth when I say I wish I could see message boards of people PRO anything America, rather its always CON.

If message boards had been around during Roman times...I would expect you would see more Con than Pro then as well.

[fable]

Originally posted by EMINEM
1. You never mentioned the US State Department in your previous post, but you certainly did mention the government of Sudan.

I didn't mention the US State Department because their frequent press briefings to the public (far more open than Dubyah's) regularly mentioned these facts, and it was all over the news, national and international. There was a tremendous outcry from small interest groups deploring the acknowledged loss of life in Clinton's attacks, and the bad old US going after those itty bitty terrorists. I didn't think I had to remind anybody of all this, since it was such headline news.

2. RE: Deceased Dromedaries. Sarcasm doesn't translate easily over the internet. My point was, and I'm sure you didn't miss it, was that the Bubba's attempts to eliminate Bin Laden were militarily pathetic, ineffectual, and more for political points than any sincere desire to wipe out terrorrism.

The subject wasn't whether any previous president was attempting to wipe out terrorism--on that scale, Reagan, Bush Sr, Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower, hey, the whole lot, abysmally failed, because they never started.

You simply stated: 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"

...and I responded by pointing out that Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton, who were all liberal (actually, Clinton was the most conservative of the bunch, and pretty conservative, at that--certainly far more so, economically speaking, than our current pres), initiated wars, or major raids, or (with Kennedy) stood up to Soviet totalitarianism in a way that could have gone as far as WWIII. Eisenhower, that ultra-conservative president, was also mentioned as a man who backed down before Soviet might, after first personally urging Soviet satellite nations to rebel. I also suggested that you might want to make fewer judgements of the possible military responses of regimes based on your ideological curve, since the facts contradict you.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
If an American presence in Iraq were to be increased, not just through weapons inspections*, but also through greater trade relations, aid and educational programs, etc., then fundamental changed in their attitude toward the US might be achieved.

This is the rationale we use when dealing with China, even though their record on human rights is far and away worse than say, Cuba's. "Keep you friends, close, but your enemies closer."

And on another, not-really-related subject:
The Germans were supposed to be subjected to weapons inspections by the Allies after World War I to ensure that they did not have a submarine force, an air force, treaty limitations on surface ships, no tanks and a total of 100,000 personnel in their armed forces. They did stonewall the Allied weapons inspectors for some time, but they also received some tacit cooperation from the British who looked the other way a couple of times because they felt that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh (it was the French who were the most hawkish when dictating terms to the vanquished).

[fable]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
They did stonewall the Allied weapons inspectors for some time, but they also received some tacit cooperation from the British who looked the other way a couple of times because they felt that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh (it was the French who were the most hawkish when dictating terms to the vanquished).

Quite so. Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister at the time, when asked why he'd gotten so little out of Versailles, told the newspapers, "There wasn't much room for maneuvering, seated as I was between Jesus Christ [Woodrow Wilson] and Napoleon [Clemenceau]." It's both witty, and accurate: Wilson, already brain-damaged from a massive stroke, only had one thought, for the formation of a League of Nations; and Clemenceau knew that his political career could end suddenly if he didn't drastically hurt the winners of the Franco-Prussian War who had actually invaded Paris.

I do think that one very good answer (well, there are no good answers, but this is one of the better ones) is to pull up with several carriers and several hundred troops, along with a UN delegation that demands immediate access to whatever they want to see, at once. If Hussein refuses, they go ahead, anyway. This puts the onus for starting a conflict squarely on him--he can claim he was invaded, but if journalists from all over the world (including the Arab world) are invited along, I don't think it would stick. Hussein and his government thrive on shadows. The shadows need to be cleared out.

[Gwalchmai]

Sorry for going off subject...

Originally posted by HighLordDave
This is the rationale we use when dealing with China, even though their record on human rights is far and away worse than say, Cuba's. "Keep you friends, close, but your enemies closer."

And, I think it would be a very good policy for dealing with Cuba as well, perhaps especially with Cuba. If we lifted the sanctions, and encouraged tourism, then Cuba would eventually become dependant on the American economy. I think the government would eventually change to follow suit. I suspect something similar happened when the Berlin Wall came down.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
And on another, not-really-related subject:
The Germans were supposed to be subjected to weapons inspections by the Allies after World War I to ensure that they did not have a submarine force, an air force, treaty limitations on surface ships, no tanks and a total of 100,000 personnel in their armed forces. They did stonewall the Allied weapons inspectors for some time, but they also received some tacit cooperation from the British who looked the other way a couple of times because they felt that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh (it was the French who were the most hawkish when dictating terms to the vanquished).

This might make a good question in "Ask HighLordDave" and I would love to hear more about this in that thread!
edit- Thanks @fable!

[smass]

I have to jump into the fire again - oh well - I will try not to offend - so far this discussion has been very thought provoking.

The stance that George W is looking for a war to help him win an election is just plain ridiculous (so much for not offending). I am not a Bush supporter - I voted Demo in the last 3 elections. I also don't have any illusions that politicians have many and varied motives. But to boil this discussion down to partisan politics is, IMHO... I am searching of for an inoffensive word here... overly simplistic. It sure is an easy jab to label George W "dubuyah", and characterize him as purely self motivated ego maniac with no regard for the health and welfare of anyone but himself. If you truly believe that then there is no point in having this discussion. Lets get off this psuedo capitalist conspiracy nonsense and look at the issues.

The potential for destruction of innocent lives that was displayed by Al Queda a year ago is the motivation for our potential invasion of Iraq. The leaders of my country would be remiss in their duties if they did not take the threat of a rogue leader with a history of murder and death to America rhetoric - like Saddam -seriously.

If our intelligence information indicates that the "government" of Iraq is supporting terrorist attempts to undermine the security of my country to such a degree that would lead to further tragedies and loss of innocent lives - than I believe that sitting by and letting events unfold as per the current status quo is irresponsible. If Saddam wants to sit in his palace and run his country and not threaten mine - then he should be left alone - much like Castro and Kadaffi. If on the other hand, Saddam or anyone else for that matter, directly supports through weapons or resources, the destruction of innocent Americans like myself - he must and will be stopped. Saddam does not respond to diplomacy, sanctions, or world wide distain - he is not a reasonable, peace loving person like you or me - unfortunately in the real world some people can only be dealt with one way...not facing this fact is very dangerous indeed...

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by smass
If our intelligence information indicates that the "government" of Iraq is supporting terrorist attempts to undermine the security of my country to such a degree that would lead to further tragedies and loss of innocent lives - than I believe that sitting by and letting events unfold as per the current status quo is irresponsible.

This goes back to a variation on a question I asked earlier in the thread: What intelligence information do we have that shows that Saddam Hussein is an imminent danger to the United States?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no conncection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. In fact, they have very little in common besides their hatred for the United States. Al-Qaeda is run by religious fanatics; Saddam Hussein has very use for religion except as a propaganda tool. He has also incurred the ire of fundamentalist Islamic groups because he has put down insurrections by Muslim groups himself.

Saddam Hussein is offering a sum of money ($25,000, I think) to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, but to my knowledge he has not issued a similar "reward" for suicide bombers who kill people in the US, nor have I heard that he is financing any of the fundamentalist Islamic groups or terrorist organisations.

What intelligence do we have that shows Saddam Hussein is actively plotting the deaths of Americans, either on US soil or abroad? To my knowledge there is none, which leads me to believe that Dubya's rhetoric is a paper tiger he himself is manufacturing as a political tool.

[smass]

@HLD - I don't have the evidence. I am a not privy to it - I am confident that George does. If you are right HLD and there is no evidence and everything is hunky dory in Iraq - than the ousting of Saddam will not be justified by my aforementioned criteria. If you are wrong HLD - I shutter to think - and hold my children closer - if you are wrong and danger is iminent then what? In light of our incomplete understanding of the situation and the players in question - What bet are you willing to make?

[HighLordDave]

I would like to think that if we have evidence that Saddam Hussein has plans to use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons on the United States, then we would have already done something about it. Consider this: we've known that Iraq has had chemical weapons since the early 1970s. We've also known that there is a fairly substantial biological weapons program in Iraq that has probably been kept out of view of the weapons inspectors and the international community. The only thing we don't believe Saddam Hussein to possess is nuclear capability; he probably has radiological weapons, but not a nuclear device or delivery system.

Knowing this, that Iraq has the means to make a chemical or biological attack on Americans, but also knowing that he has not done anything with his capabilities (and he has had plenty of opportunities), I have doubts that there is any substantial evidence that Saddam Hussein has any plans to use these weapons in a first strike. He knows that if he were to unleash a biological agent upon say, Los Angeles County, we would completely and utterly destroy him. During the Gulf War, he never used chemical weapons on American soldiers, even though he could have, because then he knew that we would come after him and not stop with the "liberation" of Kuwait, and he knew we would use nuclear weapons if need be.

I've said before that Saddam Hussein loves himself more than he hates us. He knows just how to jerk us and the international community around to get what he wants. He's like your little kid who's constantly testing his boundries, only he's got hordes of oil and his own private army to do it. Saddam is a very canny guy; he's smart enough to back down when he pushes things too far, but he's also been successful at putting the best spin on himself and garnering more sympathy than we have been.

Both fable and I have said before that he's not a megalomaniacal psychotic killer; he doesn't want to rule the world, just his little corner of it. And he knows that he can't push us too far or else we'll kill him, and that is the one result Saddam Hussein does not want.

[RandomThug]

maybe

I have heard a lot of people talk about how he might have the weapons, or he does but he may not use them or even he has them but he wont use them. And you also state he isnt smart, he is an idiot a common thug yet he is smart enough to know to not use them. I see contradiction. You dont ignore your foe (yes enemy we did go to war with him, I doubt he isnt sore on that still) just because he may not make a first strike. This isn't a debate its more likely a war and in war the first strike can be very very painful.

Unlike subjects like saving the rain forest and cutting out suv pollution, fighting a war with a madman(yes mad i say) because he might have weapons of mass destruction and might be aiding those who attacked us already... isn't something that can be summed up with "He's doing it to get re-elected"

[smass]

I don't know Saddam personally. HLD - you seem to have a good grasp of his psychological profile (I am not making fun - you have undoubtably done your research). That being said let me put a little scenario together for you. Saddam is a killer - he is not like my kid brother who tortured flies by pulling out their wings - he has had people murdered by the thousands in his rise to power. This is fact. He also is getting old and has cancer. That would generally mean that he is not long for this world. Being the egomaniac that he is - wouldn't he like to go out with a "bang"? If Saddam knew that his own death was iminent wouldn't this potentially change the equation a bit? This man has no compunction against killing - and now is facing death himself - is it such a stretch to think that he might want some of the pub than Bin Laden has received? Saddam went from public enemy #1 to a distant second to Bin Laden in a flash of jet fuel. This can't sit well with an egomaniac. A murderous ego-maniac with no reason for self preservation is a very different animal indeed...your thoughts?

[HighLordDave]

Re: maybe

Originally posted by RandomThug
I have heard a lot of people talk about how he might have the weapons, or he does but he may not use them or even he has them but he wont use them. And you also state he isnt smart, he is an idiot a common thug yet he is smart enough to know to not use them. I see contradiction. You dont ignore your foe (yes enemy we did go to war with him, I doubt he isnt sore on that still) just because he may not make a first strike. This isn't a debate its more likely a war and in war the first strike can be very very painful.

I'm not advocating ignoring Saddam Hussein; I just don't think that invading Iraq to oust him is the best course of action for the United States at this time. Nor have I ever said he's stupid; on the contrary, I've said he's very smart.

I believe that he's got biological and chemical weapons. In fact, we probably gave him some of them (to fight the Iranians after they booted out our boy, the Shah). But does having the weapons mean that he also has the will to use them. Take India and Pakistan for example; both now have nuclear weapons and short-range ballistic missile technology. Do you think there is a reasonable chance that they will nuke each other? Probably not.

It's the same with Iraq and its stockpiles of chemical, biological and radiological weapons; the primary deterrant to a nuclear first strike by either the US or Soviet Union was mutually assured destruction. That's the situation between India and Pakistan. That's also the situation between the US and Iraq, only the destruction won't be mutual; they may kill some Americans, but we would wipe them out.

I think fable's idea is certainly the best; show up, demand unbridled access for UN weapons inspectors and if the Iraqis don't let us in, have the 82nd Airborne kick the door down.

A pre-emptive strike is presumptuous on our part, and a long, ground war and occupation in Asia is one of the classic blunders of history.

[RandomThug]

ok

@HLD

I see your point better now, but I disagree on some levels. I believe that it is imminent that India/pakistan will use thier missles (rather ballistic or nuke) against each other as soon as one side becomes in danger of loosing out to the other. As I do believe that Sadam will eventually (or his son) use his weapons again perhaps not against us more likely other countries. Evil men need to be removed of power, let alone the power he controls. Unlike in afghanastan where we just got rid of one of the evils and replaced it with somewhat lesser evil I believe that sadam needs to be ousted and just washed out.

A premptive strike seems overly done(and trust me for being a Brother and best friend to two people in the military a ground war isnt what i want) i believe it is our duty to find a way to remove evil men from power. And as Bush is our president it is in our best interest to have confidence in him, because he is who he is.

thug

[smass]

"I think fable's idea is certainly the best; show up, demand unbridled access for UN weapons inspectors and if the Iraqis don't let us in, have the 82nd Airborne kick the door down" -HLD

In the best of all worlds this would be a great solution and one that I would back 100%. That being said - I don't believe the rest of the world is on board with us. One of the failures of the Bush presidency is that he has not been able to rally world support in the way that his dear dad did. Maybe George W is lazy and ineffectual, or maybe he believes that the danger is imminent and an earthwide a** kissing campaign would take too darn long. We won't know until the dust clears - but as long as Saddam is under the dust I am willing to back the pres.

[Weasel]

Somewhat based off of smass post..a different version I have seen.

Given Saddam is getting up in age, and I personally believe Saddam wants to be seen as standing up to the 'Satan' in the west. Would it be a far reach to think Saddam would drop a Nuke on Israel?

(This will have to take in to account giving Saddam time to get a nuke. Which I personally don't believe he has, but will have.)

[fable]

Re: maybe

Originally posted by RandomThug
I have heard a lot of people talk about how he might have the weapons, or he does but he may not use them or even he has them but he wont use them. And you also state he isnt smart, he is an idiot a common thug yet he is smart enough to know to not use them. I see contradiction.

I thought I'd been clear about this before; I apologize. By writing about Hussein as a "common thug," I was referring to the quality of his intellect, his goals, vision and methods, not his ability to think, itself. There are some very savvy street gang bosses out there, who know all about maintaining discipline and loyalty, while ruthlessly putting down pretenders to the throne. On the one hand, they lack the understanding to lift their territories and their gangs out of the mire they're in; they can't envision a different way of doing things (what I repeatedly call "thinking outside the box"). On the other hand, they don't go around deliberately terrorizing inhabitants for no reason at all. There is nothing psychopathic or sadistic about these actions, just a depressing lack of imagination. This is what is traditionally referred to as the "thug mentality."

Hussein has proven very good at staying on just the right side of the line drawn in the sand. He's not an idiot. He's quite canny, after his fashion. Remember, he never invaded Kuwait until he thought he had explicit US support for the action, thanks to Bush Sr's ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. (In a transcript of her last conversation with Hussein, Glaspie actually says, "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." This has long been published.) Since he actually waited to invade until he thought he had the US on his side, where is the evidence that he would launch a strike at anybody else based on ideological or psychopathic grounds? In the world of Civ III, he would be called a "ruthless pragmatist."

We claim Hussein has "nuclear capabilities." When asked to show this, all our leaders can offer as proof is the same statement, repeated again. Yet North Korea is developing a nuclear weapons program. We have evidence, and our government has provided this in the form of aerial photos, and statements involving the acknowledged import of Soviet and Chinese technology and equipment. We also know that the North Korean have one of the most oppressive, secretive regimes in the world, and they have a proven track record of launching wars without thinking they have us on their side. They are no longer protected by either the former Soviet, or by China, which makes them even more desperate.

If we're looking for dangerous, nuclear-armed psychopaths to save the world from, it would seem that North Korea is a far better candidate than Iraq. The only reason I can conclude that we're going after Iraq instead of NK is because we believe it would be easier to do: a quick way of boosting political popularity. If I am wrong, then please tell me: why aren't we directing our military attention to North Korea, first?

[InfiniteNature]

There are certain practical reasons why invading Iraq would be a bad idea, point one all the nations which we would need to invade, i.e. airbases, are not exactly pleased with the US right now and do not support a invasion of Iraq. This is one of the reasons why the Joint Chiefs do not support Bushys plan to invade Iraq, simple practicality. Bush has systematically pissed off everyone in the Middle East excepting Israel, which means of course we will not be able to station our air bases anywhere close enough to even try and bring to a effective invasion.

Point two, Bush is prosecuting this War mainly due to his dismal failure in Afghanistan, for all the saber rattling, has Bush succeeded in his central goal of getting Al Quaeda, of prosecuting or executing Osama Bin Laden, answer no he has not. We still do not know what Laden is doing out there, now I am not deriding him for not succeeding just saying that it does have political consequences and does downgrade the publics war time opinion of him as the great protector of the USA.

As a side note, while Iraq does indeed have chemical weapons, apparently so do the Kurds, recently the kurds tested their own chemical weapons, which kind of puts a stopgap on the chemical weapons issue politically I mean.

Anyway there are significant political issues in prosecuting a war on Iraq, and practical realities which can not be avoided, I doubt myself that there will be a war, at least not until there appears some connection to terrorism, otherwise it would always just be seen as some political stopgap to stife the public's image of Bushy which apparently has gone down. How one could screw up a 90%approval rating is beyond me, according to some polls it is now at 60%, Oh well that is just my own spiel.