Why must we invade Iraq? (no spam)

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 6:57 am

A joint investigation by the CIA and Department of Commerce has revealed that by mid-2003, Saddam will have stockpiled half the world's supply of Elizabeth Taylor's White Diamonds perfume. He will then launch canisters of this deadly fragrance from his secret headquarters inside a seemingly active volcano, asphyxiating our nation's capital.

That is one excellent reason

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:28 am

Originally posted by Tom
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.

From what I've been reading, I suspect the reasoning goes something like this: Hussein plans to use nukes as weapons of deterrence against the U.S. (and anyone else likely to intervene) while proceeding along his old pattern of moving into Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. I am extremely interested to see what Tony Blair has to say.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:38 am

Nuclear weapons are only a deterrant in a mutually assured destruction scenario. Furthermore, I don't believe that Iraq's nuclear capability is anywhere near being able to produce weapons-grade nuclear material. If it were, you can bet that someone (ie-the US or Israel) would have already destroyed it (like the Israelis did about 15 years ago).

Saddam can also only bully his neighbours with nukes if he has a delivery system capable of hitting a target city, which he does not have right now. He can hit Israel, parts of Saudi Arabia and Iran, but he does not have inter-continental capability, and won't in the forseeable future.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 10:06 am

Some argue that the status quo is fine and we are containing Iraq, I disagree strongly.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that 1,000,000 Iraqis, incl. 560,000 children, died as a result of malnutrition and disease caused by the international embargo

Madeleine Albright thought that the number of dead was worth it - I find that hard to stomach. There are not a lot of scenarios worse than the status quo.

I was against the war in Afghanistan but realise that I was wrong. When the US started the war the winter was approaching and 5 million people were looking at starvation. I thought like many others that if the US attacked the UN aid would not reach these people and we be looking at mass death (I was also worried that the war would destabilise Pakistan). Thankfully I underestimated the power of the US army and it seems that the actual fighting was brief enough so that aid did reach the people (I have heard nothing to the contrary at least).

So I was wrong about the last US adventure. Still, like most europeans (I have heard that it is a way of insulting people among the US right

) I am against this war. I can see no imminent threat of attack now or in the near future. Nor do I believe that Hussein is capable of threatening his neighbours.
So why the war? The last one cost an estimated 60 billion$, I wonder what an invasion war will cost. Then there is the rebuilding of the country - Europe is paying for most of Afghanistan - I have a feeling that France and Germany will not be happy to pay for the ruins of a war that they were adamantly against.
I simply don't believe the 'threat argument' but maybe a case can be made that it is best for Iraq and the rest of the world if the US dispose of Hussein and his disgusting family. We must weigh the chance of failure, likely casualties and threat to the region against the chance of success and possible improved welfare of the people of Iraq in the long term.
Not an easy thing to do. After all we are talking about a scenario we have never really seen the likes of before. It is my feeling that it is simply too risky to launch a full scale invasion - meaning that civilian casualties and suffering will outweigh any gains made. I believe that we should look at sanctions again and while treating Iraq as the rogue state it is, slowly and with conditions bring it in from the cold. Iraq must be made to accept a weapons inspections regime but it must be a fair one - one that is not full of CIA spies.
The former chief U.N. arms inspector (Rolf Ekeus, the Swedish diplomat who led the first inspections for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs from 1991-1997) has several times accused the United States and other powers of exploiting United Nations inspection teams in Iraq for their own political ends, including tracking President Saddam Hussein's movements and launching military strikes on non-WMD sites.
We could of course say "do as we say or we attack" - and then attack when Iraq says lets negotiate. That would of course just be hypocrisy, better to attack without the nonsense. I believe that there is time and room for reasonable negotiations with Iraq and to use force only if necessary.

But the war is coming. Bush has invested too much face in it. I shall of course be in the peace marches. Dont belive it will do any good though

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 11:06 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Nuclear weapons are only a deterrant in a mutually assured destruction scenario. Furthermore, I don't believe that Iraq's nuclear capability is anywhere near being able to produce weapons-grade nuclear material. If it were, you can bet that someone (ie-the US or Israel) would have already destroyed it (like the Israelis did about 15 years ago).

Saddam can also only bully his neighbours with nukes if he has a delivery system capable of hitting a target city, which he does not have right now. He can hit Israel, parts of Saudi Arabia and Iran, but he does not have inter-continental capability, and won't in the forseeable future.

In my post, I was implying that the warhawks weren't worried about an imminent attack on the homeland, but attacks on our troops, and that the warhawks believe that Saddam plans to do more than just bully his neigbors. This is pure speculation, of course.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 3:19 pm

Can someone explain the pre-emptive strike arguement that the supporters of the war are using? I'm not sure if I quite understand it.

BaronTx · Post by **BaronTx** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 5:14 pm

Can someone explain the pre-emptive strike arguement that the supporters of the war are using? I'm not sure if I quite understand it.

A pre-emptive strike would be initiated if there was some fairly hard intelligence that a terrorist attack is in the planning stages. The strike would be launched to keep 9-11 from occuring again.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 5:49 pm

Well then, here goes. Isn't the US threatening to attack Iraq because they believe Iraq to be a threat? If so, wouldn't it be justifiable for Hussein to attack the US first, because he knows they might attack him? Judging by the pre-emptive strike arguement by Rumsfield and the like, if Hussein played by those rules, wouldn't he be justified in attacking the US first, because its probable that the US will attack him?

Just asking some questions that I'd like answers to...

BaronTx · Post by **BaronTx** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 6:04 pm

@gaxx
I guess Hussein would be justified, but that's a view of perspective.
I don't know if we would be beating the war drum as loudly if Hussein didn't subsidize homicide bombers in Israel or have training camps that contained hulks of civilian airliners. Something else I heard today was about an Iraqi program that is developing aircraft drones with spray nozzles.

Remember, the US has never unilaterally attacked any country in its history. I trust Bush enough to realize that if we attack Iraq there is a good reason for it. Probably something you and I don't even know about.

3000 civilians died on 9-11 and what is happening now is a direct result of that.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 12:01 am

I am very curious to know what's in this dossier which Tony Blair mentioned. I was a bit surprised that he came down firmly in support of an attack.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 12:32 am

Originally posted by Sojourner
I am very curious to know what's in this dossier which Tony Blair mentioned. I was a bit surprised that he came down firmly in support of an attack.

Where did you see this at? (I admit to not watching the TV News lately.....or for that matter an web based sites either.)

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 1:15 am

Sky News - he stated that they (UK government) had a dossier of evidence which they plan to present in about a week. (About a day or two ago - I usually stick to news magazines myself, since the broadcast media has blatantly become mostly propaganda, due to reporters always having to put a "spin" on things. Whatever happened to just reporting the news?)

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 4:10 am

Originally posted by BaronTx
Remember, the US has never unilaterally attacked any country in its history. I trust Bush enough to realize that if we attack Iraq there is a good reason for it. Probably something you and I don't even know about.

That's not entirely true; the Mexican War was a blatant land grab but at least we made it seem like the Mexicans started shooting first.

I am also still curious to see some evidence linking Iraq to the WTC/Washington attacks; I am skeptical to believe there is any because if Dubya had any concrete link between the two it would be stupid of him to sit on it for this long. All he would has to do is prove that Saddam Hussein was behind the 11 September attacks and the American public would endorse a war that day. Since he hasn't shown us any such evidence, I am inclined to believe that Saddam Hussein wasn't involved.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 8:47 am

I am also still curious to see some evidence linking Iraq to the WTC/Washington attacks; I am skeptical to believe there is any because if Dubya had any concrete link between the two it would be stupid of him to sit on it for this long.

I recall a White House spokesperson being asked about a possible Iraqi connection to 9/11 shortly after the event. At the time, Dubyah said there was no evidence pointing in that direction, and dismissed the need to take action against Iraq. If such evidence had arisen, I would have expected its release at once. The continued vagueness, so late in the day, justifying an invasion of a foreign nation and the destruction of its government is profoundly disturbing.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 8:50 am

The US and UK have now attacked an Iraqi defense facility. Full story here

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 12:06 pm

A majority in the Dutch parliament will decide to support Bush in his war against Iraq.

It's preferred if it's done after an UN-resolution, but it isn't really necessary in the opinion of the majority parties.

I saw this on another board, anybody from The Netherlands have a clue if this is true?

BaronTx · Post by **BaronTx** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 5:11 pm

@HLD The border dispute between Texas and Mexico was inherited by the US when Texas applied for statehood. Texas considered their southern border to be the Rio Grande and Mexico claimed the Nueces river. The Republic of Texas would probably have gone to war with Mexico about the same time as the US did.

Concerning the WTC/Washington attack connection to Iraq and the lack of immediate proof, thats water under the bridge. Take a good look at what Daschle and the liberal media has said and done. Then think about the 3000 CIVILIANS that died on 9-11. Do you want to take any more chances?

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 5:49 pm

Originally posted by Weasel

I saw this on another board, anybody from The Netherlands have a clue if this is true?

Radio Nederland says that the parliament vote was simply an expression of willingness to back the US after an extensive attempt has been made to resume arms inspectors for Iraq. This was also emphasized in the Prime Minister's speech at the time of the vote.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 5:52 pm

Originally posted by BaronTx
Concerning the WTC/Washington attack connection to Iraq and the lack of immediate proof, thats water under the bridge. Take a good look at what Daschle and the liberal media has said and done.

Liberal media...liberal media. No offense, but what liberal media in the US? The giant media corporations that own more than 80% of the television and radio stations and major metropolitan newspapers are all conservative, as you'd expect of billion dollar corporations. Hell, it would be great to see a true diversity of view from many perspectives in the editorial columns of newspapers (which I suspect you're referring to) again, from every perspective--and that means far outside the artificial liberal/conservative divide that has dogged the US for the last fifty years.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 7:31 pm

Originally posted by BaronTx
Concerning the WTC/Washington attack connection to Iraq and the lack of immediate proof, thats water under the bridge.

So you would risk the international credibility of the United States and thousands of American lives on the basis of nothing more than allegations, rumours and innuendo? I'm all for getting the bastards who bombed New York and Washington, but before I will feel comfortable putting several divisions and a couple of battlegroups in harm's way, I want to make sure that we're going after the correct bastards.

If there is any evidence linking Saddam Hussein with the WTC/Pentagon attacks, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, stop using the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and 11 September as a crutch. It is my belief that Dubya's sabre-rattling about Iraq is based more in politics than protecting our national interests.

I also think that by attacking Iraq without clear provocation we are surrendering any sort of moral high ground we may hold as the world's leader. It is our responsibility as the most powerful nation on Earth to be a positive example, not a bully. It's put up or shut up time for the hawks in the administration; no one outside Dubya's inner circle and his apologists think that going after Saddam Hussein is a good idea and only the most foolish among us think that by eliminating Iraq's petty despot we are making the world a safer place for all Americans. In fact, there is a very real possibility that by going to war with Iraq at this time, we will stir up even more anti-American sentiment and more civilians will find themselves in the crosshairs of terrorists and other nogoodniks.