Why must we invade Iraq? (no spam)

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Aug 29, 2002 3:49 pm

Re: Re: maybe

Originally posted by fable
why aren't we directing our military attention to North Korea, first?

Because there's no oil in North Korea.

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Thu Aug 29, 2002 3:53 pm

Originally posted by smass

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.

This would be my question. Blair is pressured to stand by the US, as patterns have guided, but the general opinion from what I have garnered is that this is a loyalty issue, and not a unilateral alliance issue...

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Aug 29, 2002 5:11 pm

Re: Re: maybe

Originally posted by fable
why aren't we directing our military attention to North Korea, first?

My personal opinion on why North Korea is not targeted first..(besides the oil issue)..the though of what China might do.

In a war over Taiwan, the US would have an advantage..water. China can't at this moment put into effect a water borne invasion of Taiwan...well not expect it to work.

North Korea though is a different story, and any move in this direction will most likely bring China into this conflict..something all the wonder weapons of the US cannot beat. I for one cannot imagine fighting a group that can overrun 50 calbier machine guns with bamboo sticks and in the end coming up with a divided line. My mind boggles at the amount of men it would even take to overrun one.

For North Korea to be (looking for a word) liberated (bad chose) China will have to be involved.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 29, 2002 5:21 pm

My personal opinion on why North Korea is not targeted first..(besides the oil issue)..the though of what China might do.

I know. My question was more rhetorical than anything else, and a bit facetious.

I was pointing out that the US government's "outrage" at Hussein, all the ramped-up rhetoric, is guided by ice-cold cynicism about what would be in the best political interests of the administration. Were it otherwise, were they truly as hot under the collar to save the world as they vehemently insist, they could find several other candidates for Global Threat who really fit that bill. Starting with North Korea.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Aug 29, 2002 5:41 pm

@Fable, I agree whole heartly.

(Plus I wanted to state my opinion on N. Korea before Bush starts down this road)

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Thu Aug 29, 2002 5:55 pm

Fable

Your right, personally I fear N. Korea more than saddam. I cant say who would be better to take out first, I dont know enough facts.

But both should be taken out of the level they are, a potential threat to American Civilians (as well as other countries civilians, I put my country first because well Im American)

Anyhow its late works almost over and I cant think straight in closing.

GO SEE The Boondock Saints (rent it or buy the dvd)

thug(mentality)

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm

@RandomThug, if we were to take out every nation whose leader we consider a "threat," we wouldn't have any neighbors--assuming they all didn't gang up and get us, first. I don't see anything being accomplished by launching a war on Hussein, except for a midterm blip for the administration. In the long run, it has all the attractions of the Soviet's Afghanistan occupation, and that is definitely meant ironically.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Thu Aug 29, 2002 8:30 pm

Comments

About the topic question. I don't see why invade Iraq. Invade a nation, in my opinion, is a capital crime and a capital mistake, hystory make me "remember" that. USA, one of the nation of I see as a major interventionist use to pay the prices of such invasions, but still invading. Especially in that area of the world, we must respect soberany to keep ours. There are other ways to solve these problems. Even worst than make an invasion is make it unilaterally, without ONU, UN, NATO... .

Bin Laden- Hussein- Totaly diferent. No chances of comparition. The first is a religious fanatic, the other is the Leader of a nation, as Bush.

If you want to know my opinion, I am more afraid of something USA can do, than something that Iraq can do.

A-bomb - USA have lots. And is the only country in the hystory who drop it, two(Let me remember that the justification of the A-bomb drop by the USA, was "occur an attack to the USA soberany"). If I was an idiot, as I think Hussein is, i was seeking my bomb too.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Fri Aug 30, 2002 1:33 am

Slightly off-topic and not very clearly expressed, apologies for that.

Originally posted by RandomThug
And as Bush is our president it is in our best interest to have confidence in him, because he is who he is.

thug

I would tend to disagree with this statement, applied to any leader. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, not just directed towards one's enemies, but towards one's leaders as well.
The US is, in spite of all it's flaws (for let's face it, all countries have their flaws, and the status of the US as the world's sole superpower means those flaws carry that much more weight, as do it's good points) is a free country. The price of keeping it as such is maintaining a reasonably high level of scrutiny and, ideally, involvement by the people in the political process.

If someone who sees what I'm getting at here could express it better than I can that would be much appreciated, I'm a tad fuzzy-headed today.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Fri Aug 30, 2002 4:19 am

Well, call me extremely cynical, but I've thought very little of Bush from the start. IMO, this sudden interest in Iraq is a personnal agenda for Bush and also an attempt at sleight-of-hand to distract people from the domestic issues to improve his election bid. (Arghh, I hope we get a good alternate candidate who'll hand him a resounding loss.)

So far, he hasn't really shown a good reason for going after Iraq. While Hussein is not a nice guy by any means, and has undoubtedly developed nasty weapons of destruction, I haven't seen any proof that he'd make an overt attack on the U.S.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:09 am

Originally posted by smass
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?

I've been thinking about this and I apologise for taking so long to address your question (I also didn't get around to checking in on GameBanshee last night; IWD2 and all that . . .)

Your exactly right that Saddam probably doesn't like being upstaged by Osama bin Laden. But he probably does like that the US has someone else to pick on and can't direct all of its energy towards him.

I am also a little wary of how bad his reported cancer actually is and whether or not it is spreading or if it's under control. The rest of the world will probably never know. However, I also think that he may be more worried about a patricidal son or rival than the US in terms of his immediate health.

One other thing about Saddam Hussein: while he may very well want to go out in a blaze of glory, I think he'd much rather be a martyr. Saddam is not a religious guy; that's been pretty well established before. However, he likes to play the Islam card when dealing with the west. I think that as a lot of people see their impeding death, they become concerned with their legacy and most people want to be remembered for good things, not being insane. I think Saddam Hussein is no different.

He's shown in the past that he can push the international community and come out looking like the one being picked on instead of being the antagonist himself. I think he'll try and draw the US into attacking him and make himself look like the poor Muslim brother being picked on by the white, Christian bully.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Aug 30, 2002 7:41 am

Re: Slightly off-topic and not very clearly expressed, apologies for that.

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
I would tend to disagree with this statement, applied to any leader. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, not just directed towards one's enemies, but towards one's leaders as well.

I agree wholeheartedly with these statements of Ode's. I would add that the price of privilege is accepted responsibility, and the latter part is what US politicians attempt to play down. They know that if Americans think of democracy as pulling a lever every few years, they can pretty much do what they like; so they encourage what I've previously called the "bread and circuses syndrome" after the Roman emperors who pioneered it, distracting a populace's interests with endless entertainment and enough to eat. Keep Maslow's basics satisfied, and show them pretty trinkets to engage their low attention spans, and you have 'em in your pocket--or so our cynical politicians seem to think, judging from their words and actions.

In a land whose size and party apparatus was actually open to ideas and functioned as a democracy, I think the Bush administration's unilateralism would have instantly sent its people into a serious, nationwide debate. Instead, that administration has been allowed to continue unchecked a policy of abrogating or ignoring international treaties carefully negotiated and set in place by the Reagan, Carter, Bush Sr and Clinton administrations. The latest efforts to "go it alone" and attack another nation's sovreignty for no discernable reason seem to me only part of the same.

Bush is canny enough to know that his best chance of having the Executive branch of government act like an absolutist monarchy is to bang the military drum and rack up a success or two, while covering for his failure to find bin Ladan. In turn, I think it's the responsibility of every citizen to analyze the unilateralist rhetoric, consider its logic and the probable outcome of its goals. If we're not willing to do that, we might as well give up the whole game, put on gold-plated iron collars and redeclare ourselves as the Two-Party Monarchy of the United States, King Dubyah I the Unelected presiding.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri Aug 30, 2002 11:34 am

@Fable

I have done some light reading outside of the forums and some heavy reading within the forums. And to my dismay I find myself swaying farther and farther from what I once considered my love of the US. While I still believe men of evil should be removed from power, I dont understand my countries actions (timing and all). The extreme simplication of a lot of actions *As in "He's doing it cause his daddy did or better yet, he didnt find bin laden so he is attacking Iraq soley for pride* dont ring true to me. YET I still feel that Bush is lacking in what I would want, as in a good man.

I have said many times that evil men need to be removed, but it is the job of the good man to do so not another less evil sort. Which makes me confused and botherd. You sonsawoobars(my new non curse word) have altered my perception a bit.

I'd love to be blind and follow Bush into Iraq (Considering my friends doing a Tour through it right now and my brother is also stationed ready to go) but I dont understand so much of his motives anymore, or better yet dont want to. I think I am personally going to change my views on life and edge out a lot of my Pro American values and replace them with my Pro Good Human values. I dont know.... all I know is I hope I dont get all religousy like eminem(No insult intended, and if you are insulted well then just imagine me the idiot I am and you'll feel better).

thug

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Aug 30, 2002 12:24 pm

Re: @Fable

Originally posted by RandomThug
I have done some light reading outside of the forums and some heavy reading within the forums. And to my dismay I find myself swaying farther and farther from what I once considered my love of the US.

I am hardly the guy who should be giving a pro-American pep talk, and I really shouldn't put words in the old man's mouth, but if there's anything that fable and I encourage it's for people to question their leaders, think critically and truly become citizens of our country.

If you read back through many of my posts (all 2250+), you'll see me many times say things which are critical of the past actions of the United States, our current or past policies and our leaders (especially Dubya; you'll notice that I have never even called him President Bush). Does this mean that I don't love the United States? No. It means that I want us to own up to the bad things we've done as well as take credit for all of the good things we have done in the past, are doing today and will do in the future.

There are several circumstance under which I would fully support invading Iraq or striking out at other nogoodniks around the world. However, I do not believe that we have international credibility or even a good moral reason to invade Iraq at this time. My point in starting this thread isn't to say that Saddam Hussein should be left in power, nor is it to senselessly attack the United States or its policies; I want to find out why some people think invading Iraq right now is a good idea because for the life of me, I don't understand it.

Blind obedience to any cause or person is a very dangerous thing. Under the guidance of a charasmatic and smart leader, people following blindly tend to engage in practises they would not consider otherwise and they can be made to do things that they might normally think are unreasonable. Thataway lies the Holocaust.

There are many good reasons to love and be proud of the United States. We are undoubtably the most powerful nation on the Earth. We do many good deeds and even the poorest among us have one of the highest standards of living in the world. However, we, as individual citizens, shouldn't rest on our laurels and let the world fall to pieces around us. Nor should we expect the rest of the world to follow us becase we think we're good guys.

If we are going to have any credibility as the leader of the free world, then we must actively engage the international community, use our power judiciously and set a good example for others to follow. In my opinion, we are not currently doing any of those, and invading Iraq without clear provocation or without an imminent threat flies in the face of everything we claim to espouse.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Aug 30, 2002 2:31 pm

I just read an interesting article from CNN.com about Dubya and his cronies.

Two interesting quotes:

From the article: "Rumsfeld also said this week that the decision to strike Iraq will be based on leadership, not consensus."

From GEN Anthony Zinni, USMC (ret.): "It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals [Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell, Norman Schwartzkopf] see it in the same way, and all those, who never fired a shot in anger and really held back to go to war, see it in a different way. That's usually the way it is in history."

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:40 am

I would say that in order to invade we must have evidence that Hussein actively planning to attack the west. I am extremely sceptical that he has any such plans ? what would he stand to gain? Tony claims to have a dossier that will show why we must attack Iraq, hopefully we will see it soon.

One thing that must be important in considering an attack is casualties. I have not been able to find any casualty numbers for the last war.
I would like to know how many people died as a result of the war in 1991 ? does anyone know?
Does anyone know the casualty estimates if the US attacks as an invading force now?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 6:18 am

Originally posted by Tom
I would like to know how many people died as a result of the war in 1991 ? does anyone know?
Does anyone know the casualty estimates if the US attacks as an invading force now?

According to CNN.com, the total Coalition killed were just a little over 200 (including 9 British KIA who were killed by American friendly fire). The numbers for the Iraqis were considerably higher, although no one knows for sure since the Iraqis exaggerated their claims and the Americans never knew exactly how many people were killed in the air campaign. Iraq claims that 100,000 soldiers and 35,000 civilians were killed, although these numbers are suspect.

I don't think that American casualties in the short term will be too high. Iraq simply cannot stand up to us in a conventional war. Plus, the modern US Army and Marine Corps are much better prepared to deal with chemical and biological weapons than say the Kurds or the Iranians. I think large casualty figures for the Americans will come into play if we end up occupying the country for any length of time (think: the Soviets in Afghanistan) or get bogged down in urban warfare, something we managed to avoid in the Gulf War.

On the flip side of this, if the Americans go into Iraq and show them that we are much more benevolent than Saddam Hussein and make it clear that we are not coming as conquerers, we may not face a generation of Mujihadeen trying to drive us out.

CM · Post by CM » Wed Sep 04, 2002 6:21 am

My 2 cents: I personally agree with getting rid of Saddam. Ground invasion or hit team. Either way get rid of him. I would prefer a ground invasion instead of an air borne strike, as that leaves too many innocents in the line of fire.

Saddam has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people and Iranians. He attacked Israel to gain Arab support. He provides money to the family of suicide bombers while his own people die of hunger. Common thug or meglomaniac. I say he has to go.

As for international opinion, the US is in the position to force many of the gulf countries to support it. Cut of Aid to Saudi and see how they squeal and beg to help. Same with Egypt and other nations. The other thing is that the US military has always led. It will always do so and it has the capabilities to defeat 3 or 4 armies. It is high trained with a very able set or men and women. Iraq is no match. Neither is any other country. So a bit of arm twisting will help in the case of bases to attack Iraq. And who ever said arm twisting is a bad thing?

As for why he is doing it. I personally feel it is for the 2004 elections or another completely different reason. The russian plant being built in Iran goes nuclear in 2007. The Chinese plant a year later. At the time Iran will have nuclear power and if they get help from Pakistan or other sources they may have the potential of getting nuclear weapons. However if by 2004 there is a war and saddam is removed, a leader will be selected who is supportive of the US and looking back at history he or she would be anti-iran, further boxing in the country. But that is just a conspiracy theory.

Bottom line, if the US wants to get rid of Saddam i am all for it.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 6:34 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave

According to CNN.com, the total Coalition killed were just a little over 200 (including 9 British KIA who were killed by American friendly fire). The numbers for the Iraqis were considerably higher, although no one knows for sure since the Iraqis exaggerated their claims and the Americans never knew exactly how many people were killed in the air campaign. Iraq claims that 100,000 soldiers and 35,000 civilians were killed, although these numbers are suspect.

I don't think that American casualties in the short term will be too high. Iraq simply cannot stand up to us in a conventional war. Plus, the modern US Army and Marine Corps are much better prepared to deal with chemical and biological weapons than say the Kurds or the Iranians. I think large casualty figures for the Americans will come into play if we end up occupying the country for any length of time (think: the Soviets in Afghanistan) or get bogged down in urban warfare, something we managed to avoid in the Gulf War.

On the flip side of this, if the Americans go into Iraq and show them that we are much more benevolent than Saddam Hussein and make it clear that we are not coming as conquerers, we may not face a generation of Mujihadeen trying to drive us out.

Those numbers was that just the air campaign or does that include all subsequent fighting and indirect casualties due to war damage?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 6:37 am

Originally posted by Tom
Was that just the air campaign or does that include all subsequent fighting and indirect casualties due to war damage?

It's my understanding that those numbers include both the air and ground campaigns. We got really lucky in the Gulf War and managed to escape with what amounts to a minimal number of killed, wounded and captured.