Originally posted by at99
You said the last gulf war was really about war. Can you prove this? I dont believe the people of Kuwait would agree. What else could the world do, just let Iraq invade? The old conspiracy cry of oil is a little hard to believe.
Was the Gulf War about the freedom of Kuwait? If protecting free people was so important, why didn't we stand up and push the Soviets out of Afghanistan? Most Kuwaitis cannot vote, there is not a free press and the government is at the beck and call of the ruling family. To say that the Gulf War was promoting democracy is erroneous.
There are many reasons behind the Gulf War, not the least of which is oil. There was a president with flagging public support and an economy on the brink of recession (sound familiar?). The armed forces were flush with new technologies and new doctrine after the boom of the Reagan spending splurges and things came together that made it politically desirable for the US to go to war. Don't forget that the Bush administraction sent mixed signals to Saddam Hussein and actually led him to believe that they would stand by and let him occupy Kuwait (ask fable for details about this).
What should the US do with Iraq nothing?
My problem with war in Iraq is that it is unnecessary and will have consequences that will outlive the tenure of the president who started it. Dubya wants us to believe that Saddam Hussein consorts with terrorists and sponsors terrorism. This has not been historically the case and his only association with them today is the result of hard times making strange bedfellows.
As a state, Iraq has never sponsored terrorism in the same way as Libya, Iran or Syria. Nor has Iraq been linked to militant groups like Yemen, the UAE or Sudan. Saddam Hussein wants to be the big dog on the block and if he sponsors groups like Al-Qaeda, he has to share the spotlight, which he doesn't want to do. The current Iraqi regime also is fundamentally opposed to militant Islamic groups because Saddam Hussein is not an ideologue.
The drum beat that Hussein marches to is not Allah's word, but that of personal power. He is as secular as they come and has shown that he will play the Islam card only to his advantage, but he is not a religious zealot and men like bin Laden know this. He has offered to pay the families of suicide bombers a reward, but he does not harbour terrorist training camps (like the Taliban did) nor does he have agents blow up planes (like Libya). As a result, the Islamic fundamentalists don't really want to be lumped in with him because they are doing God's will and Hussein is a thug. The only thing Saddam Hussein has in common with Osama bin Laden is their mutual hatred for the United States. Beyond that, the two are not allies and if anything are natural adversaries.
If you listen back to Colin Powell's speech making the case for war against Iraq, there is one thing missing that I feel is critical to invading a country as a pre-emptive strike: an imminent threat. The evidence Powell laid out is comprehensive and fairly convincing. There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq has been stonewalling the weapons inspectors and is hiding nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. However, Powell did not even try to make the case that Iraq was actively planning to use these weapons or had a master plan to unleash them on the world.
Saddam Hussein likes to live. That's why he didn't use his chemical or biological weapons on US troops in the Gulf War. He knew that if he gave up quickly, he would be left to rule Iraq. Despite having shown the willingness and the means to use chemical and biological weapons in the past, Hussein refrained from using these weapons against the American and British out of fear of assassination or nuclear retaliation. Hussein wants to be the king of the hill and if America wipes out the hill, he's left with nothing. He's a petty despot and a bully, not a megalomaniac. He has repeatedly shown that he will back down if confronted. I go back to what I've said about him before, "Saddam Hussein loves himself more than he hates America."
My problem with Dubya's war is that he has already told Saddam Hussein that he will not survive the invasion. He will either be killed or he will be dragged to the Hague for trial as a war criminal. There is nothing more dangerous than someone who is backed into a corner. Knowing that he will lose everything, there is nothing to stop Hussein from ordering his stockpiles of chemical and biological agents to be used on American soldiers. Nor is there any reason for him not to inject a dozen unvaccinated agents with small pox then put them on planes for Paris, London, New York, Miami, Atlanta, San Francisco, Tel Aviv, Chicago, Los Angeles, Berlin, Rome and Jerusalem.
Iraq is a one-man show. Saddam Hussein has routinely purged his cronies and ensured that no one can challenge his authority. If it is regime change that is desired in Iraq, do we have to go to war and get stuck with a lengthy and costly occupation? Why not assassinate him and his top henchmen? There is a government-in-exile that has already formed in New York that will be ready to assume power in Iraq once Hussein is gone. There are many avenues we could pursue that would remove Saddam Hussein from power that don't involve American tanks rolling into Baghdad. Why is Dubya so intent on prosecuting this war without considering its long-term consequences?
Originally posted by Der-draigen
Funny...that's how many Jews were killed in the Holocaust.
Don't forget the 6 million Poles, gypsies, slavs, political dissidents, homosexuals, mentally retarded, and physically handicapped people who also died in the death camps; just as many non-Jews died in the Holocaust as did Jews.
