U.S.A. to Invade Iraq

We have a cartoonist here is France, who made a picture of Mr Hussein holding papers and talking to one of the US inspectors :
Sadam : I have here documents prooving that the United States are building Mass Destruction Weapons.
The inspector (not very sure of himself) : Uh...No way...

But the U.S. didn't lose the Gulf War: Hussein did, was told to give up his hunt for WMDs: HE AGREED, and has been breaking that agreement ever since.

That's one reason I don't see this as entirely pre-emptive. Sure, we want to pre-empt Hussein getting and using nukes, but we also want to enforce a treaty that he has already signed.

It would be like you defaulting on a loan and the car being repossessed. It's not like the repossession "came out of nowhere."

 

But the U.S. didn't lose the Gulf War: Hussein did, was told to give up his hunt for WMDs: HE AGREED, and has been breaking that agreement ever since.

No, of course not. But, I ask everyone...11 years later, WHAT exactly was our GOAL in the Gulf "War"? To "destroy Saddam's 'potential' for gaining WMD? Or to remove him? Because if it was the latter...we obviously failed (or more like Bush Sr. wasn't willing to risk the ground troops to take Saddam out.)

Bottom line is, Hussein is STILL in power, 2 presidents later, and 'supposedly' is still seeking or HAS WMD; so how can we really say we really "won" anything in the gulf "war"? BILLIONS of our dollars were spend on a campain that essentially FAILED to remove the "threat" from the region, and BILLIONS more will be spent again (any day now...elections are coming up) to do just about the same thing.

How many "wars" can we really fight AT THE SAME TIME? This doesn't weaken our "war" on terrorism...(which, personally I see as MUCH more of a threat than Hussein!)? Our airport security is STILL a joke. Immigration in this country is STILL a mess. Our borders with Canada and Mexico are STILL pourous. There are reportedly DOZENS of terrorist sleeper-cells STILL active WITHIN our country. I would be MUCH more worried about an INTERNAL attack (on nuclear powerplants, dams, etc.) from Al Quedia or related groups, than ANY sort of attack by Hussein on the U.S. homeland.

I believe we will be attacked again soon on a level MUCH worse than Sept. 11...mainly due to the INCOMPETENCE of our federal agenices who's job's it is to PROTECT AND SECURE OUR DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY. This is our government's utmost priority. If they cannot ensure our saftey, then our government and leadership has failed to live up to it's basic RESPONSIBITY to protect those who elected these people to their powerful positions.

All I'm saying is, IMO, you DEFEND your OWN backyard 1st before worrying about "potenital" threats halfway around the globe...one's that pose no IMMEDIATE threat IMO. On a terrorist update note: New threats I believe this is our main threat right now. And I DO believe the something must be done with Saddam eventually. But, I don't believe that the U.S. should "go it alone" (realitivly speaking) and should NOT act against the wishes of the UN and the vast majority of the world community. It's bad business IMO, and just asking for a huge backlash in the Arab world and in most other nations.

 

Bottom line is, Hussein is STILL in power, 2 presidents later, and 'supposedly' is still seeking or HAS WMD; so how can we really say we really "won" anything in the gulf "war"? BILLIONS of our dollars were spend on a campain that essentially FAILED to remove the "threat" from the region, and BILLIONS more will be spent again (any day now...elections are coming up) to do just about the same thing.

Why exactly is "supposedly" in quotes? You think we're making this up? That Saddam ISN'T trying to obtain a nuke?

The goal of the Gulf War was to drive Hussein out of Kuwait, which we accomplished. A goal of the treaty Hussein signed was to limit him as a threat to his own people, his neigbors, and our allies.

If that has failed (because Hussein refuses to abide by the treaty he signed), then LET'S FIX IT.

How many "wars" can we really fight AT THE SAME TIME? This doesn't weaken our "war" on terrorism...(which, personally I see as MUCH more of a threat than Hussein!)? Our airport security is STILL a joke. Immigration in this country is STILL a mess. Our borders with Canada and Mexico are STILL pourous. There are reportedly DOZENS of terrorist sleeper-cells STILL active WITHIN our country. I would be MUCH more worried about an INTERNAL attack (on nuclear powerplants, dams, etc.) from Al Quedia or related groups, than ANY sort of attack by Hussein on the U.S. homeland.

Ideally, we can fight full-scale wars in two far-reaching theaters. We should be able to take out Hussein (not even a full-theater war) while maintaining our efforts at home and in Afghanistan. If we can't, let's rebuild our military so that we CAN.

(Honestly, the rebuilding of our military is probably one of the reasons we've waited a full year and change after 9/11 to target Iraq.)

All I'm saying is, IMO, you DEFEND your OWN backyard 1st before worrying about "potenital" threats halfway around the globe...one's that pose no IMMEDIATE threat IMO. On a terrorist update note: New threats I believe this is our main threat right now. And I DO believe the something must be done with Saddam eventually. But, I don't believe that the U.S. should "go it alone" (realitivly speaking) and should NOT act against the wishes of the UN and the vast majority of the world community. It's bad business IMO, and just asking for a huge backlash in the Arab world and in most other nations.

If Hussein gets a nuke, he will likely give it to terrorists (who he already harbors and possibly trains) to use against us. THAT poses an immediate and terrible threat to our country.

To be honest, I'm getting to the point that I don't care what the rest of the world thinks about this.

The Arab world? Most of them are ruled by theocrats and totalitarians, and their backlash will have little to no effect on us.

The rest of the world? France and Russia have been breaking the UN sanctions and trading with Iraq, so who cares what they think?

Fact is, it was OUR buildings that were targeted on 9/11: it was OUR jets used as missles, and it was OUR citizens who were hurling themselves out of the inferno in the World Trade Centers. If Iraq had no hand in 9/11 explicitly, they've certainly had their hands in other acts of terrorism, and they are seeking even more powerful weapons of terror.

I agree that our government's most basic responsibility is "to protect those who elected these people to their powerful positions." If they care more about world opinion than national security, THEN THEY WILL HAVE FAILED.

 

CNN.com Headline: Breaking News!







...and a Jango

 

Why exactly is "supposedly" in quotes? You think we're making this up? That Saddam ISN'T trying to obtain a nuke?

No. I don't doubt that. It's just I've seen NO PROOF that he actually HAS them. To attack without KNOWING FOR A FACT, is essentially "thoughtcrime" IMO. What if after we attack, we find out he had NONE? How bad will that look to the global community?

The goal of the Gulf War was to drive Hussein out of Kuwait, which we accomplished. A goal of the treaty Hussein signed was to limit him as a threat to his own people, his neigbors, and our allies.

But, according to Bush, he HAS been a "threat" to his neighbors and OWN people for the last 11 years. Why attack NOW and not, say 5 years ago?

Ideally, we can fight full-scale wars in two far-reaching theaters. We should be able to take out Hussein (not even a full-theater war) while maintaining our efforts at home and in Afghanistan. If we can't, let's rebuild our military so that we CAN.

I don't really disagree with you here, but think we ARE "spreading ourselves thin" right now. Also, can we truly AFFORD to do this? Isn't the economy doing horrible enough as it is? Do American's really want THAT MUCH MORE debt...things we should think about 1st...that's all I'm saying.

If Hussein gets a nuke, he will likely give it to terrorists (who he already harbors and possibly trains) to use against us. THAT poses an immediate and terrible threat to our country.

I don't agree. IF he obtained a nuke, he'd likely keep it as a "bartering-chip" and make demands with it as a threat. Giving a nuke to terrorists does little to keep his, or gain him power in the region IMO.

To be honest, I'm getting to the point that I don't care what the rest of the world thinks about this.

That's the very problem with most American's thinking IMO. It DOES matter. We create MORE enemies every day with our "global cop" stand on foreign policy IMO. Eventually, we WILL run out of friends. Like I've said before, empires fall out of self-indulgence and arrogance, and from the feeling that they don't NEED allies to acheive their goals.

The Arab world? Most of them are ruled by theocrats and totalitarians, and their backlash will have little to no effect on us.

Not true. MOST of our oil comes from these totalitarian regimes...expect MORE financial problems for the U.S. should we make more enemies over there. Also, this WILL have a HUGE impact on ISRAEL, which the U.S. will seemingly due ANYTHING to protect. An attack on Iraq, makes Israel a last-ditch-effort target for Iraq, and the U.S. attack WILL be seen by many Arabs as "Zionist-lead" attacks with America as their puppets. I believe Israel will face GREAT troubles this time if we attack... and not just from Iraq. More proof of how other nations in the region will be effected by a U.S. invasion Of course, Sharon has already stated that IF Saddam attacks with WMD or THINKS they are using WMD against Israel, he has the right to NUKE Iraq...not good for the WORLD.

The rest of the world? France and Russia have been breaking the UN sanctions and trading with Iraq, so who cares what they think?

No arguement. But, you surely realize that "WE" have broken numerous UN sanctions on several occasions before.

I agree that our government's most basic responsibility is "to protect those who elected these people to their powerful positions." If they care more about world opinion than national security, THEN THEY WILL HAVE FAILED

They don't have to "Care" about one more than the other necessarily. However, regarding Iraq, they should be mindful of foreign response...I honestly believe it will come back to haunt us should we go in without UN approval, and the approval of a majority of the "civilzed" world. Just my .02.

 

No. I don't doubt that. It's just I've seen NO PROOF that he actually HAS them. To attack without KNOWING FOR A FACT, is essentially "thoughtcrime" IMO. What if after we attack, we find out he had NONE? How bad will that look to the global community?

"Thoughtcrime." Riiiiiight.


But, according to Bush, he HAS been a "threat" to his neighbors and OWN people for the last 11 years. Why attack NOW and not, say 5 years ago?

You have a good point: in fact, Clinton talked a lot about the dangers of Hussein FOUR years ago, in 1998. But he did nothing then.

He is a threat. It has been a mistake to NOT deal with Saddam, but that's not a reason to NOT attack now.


I don't really disagree with you here, but think we ARE "spreading ourselves thin" right now. Also, can we truly AFFORD to do this? Isn't the economy doing horrible enough as it is? Do American's really want THAT MUCH MORE debt...things we should think about 1st...that's all I'm saying.

Larger debt or Saddam getting a nuke...

Debt or nuke...

Y'know what, I'm willing to risk the debt.


I don't agree. IF he obtained a nuke, he'd likely keep it as a "bartering-chip" and make demands with it as a threat. Giving a nuke to terrorists does little to keep his, or gain him power in the region IMO.

OH, so he'd use it to blackmail the rest of the world as he marched over Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and whoever else he finds. That's better?


That's the very problem with most American's thinking IMO. It DOES matter. We create MORE enemies every day with our "global cop" stand on foreign policy IMO. Eventually, we WILL run out of friends. Like I've said before, empires fall out of self-indulgence and arrogance, and from the feeling that they don't NEED allies to acheive their goals.

Yeah, God forbid we upset the rest of the world. Some people could get so mad at us that they'd hijack planes and ram them into office buildings.

Oh, wait. That's already happened.

I'll tell you this: sure, attacking Iraq may upset other countries, but THEY'LL be less likely to mess with us since we will have made clear that we will not put up with it.

WE WILL BE SAFER if we are strong, particularly in dealing with thugs like Hussein and bin Ladin.


Not true. MOST of our oil comes from these totalitarian regimes...expect MORE financial problems for the U.S. should we make more enemies over there. Also, this WILL have a HUGE impact on ISRAEL, which the U.S. will seemingly due ANYTHING to protect. An attack on Iraq, makes Israel a last-ditch-effort target for Iraq, and the U.S. attack WILL be seen by many Arabs as "Zionist-lead" attacks with America as their puppets. I believe Israel will face GREAT troubles this time if we attack... and not just from Iraq. More proof of how other nations in the region will be effected by a U.S. invasion Of course, Sharon has already stated that IF Saddam attacks with WMD or THINKS they are using WMD against Israel, he has the right to NUKE Iraq...not good for the WORLD.

So Sharon should say what? That Saddam can kill as many Israelis as he wants? That Israel won't respond? THAT'LL help.

And the Arabs will hate Israel and the U.S., regardless of what we do.. so we might as well do the right thing.

One wonders, if we're going to lose our access to foreign oil because of this war, how again is this a "war for oil"?


No arguement. But, you surely realize that "WE" have broken numerous UN sanctions on several occasions before.

Where we forced to at the conclusion of a war WE lost? NOPE.


They don't have to "Care" about one more than the other necessarily. However, regarding Iraq, they should be mindful of foreign response...I honestly believe it will come back to haunt us should we go in without UN approval, and the approval of a majority of the "civilzed" world. Just my .02.

We would be FURTHER haunted by an Arab world dominated by nuke-armed Saddam Hussein.

People have complained that the U.S. government didn't "connect the dots" on 9/11.

 

You say you have seen no proof Saddam has WMDs, but the undisputed fact is that he DOES. If you were serious about it there is plenty of information proving that he has Biological and Chemical weapons, not even your far left anti-war people can disagree with that. He had some when we left, and he has rebuilt those weapons, and if you honestly think that he doesn't have them, you are a bigger fool than I thought. The evidence of him being on the verge of obtaining nukes is much more limited and open to debate, although I feel that we have suffient evidence that he is very close.

You say it would be embarressing if we went in and didn't find anything, but it would only be embareressing for Saddam because he would be dead for nothing. REMEBER, this is HIS choice. If he doesn't have the weapons, why would he object to UN weapons inspectors going in anywhere at any time? He wouldn't. He could retain his power if he gives up his weapons.

I am glad that somebody showed that we could have much more oil cheaper if we just let Saddam sell it to the US.


There is one anti-war argument I respect, although I do not agree with it. That the US should not go into Iraq because it will harm our own interests, both in the War on Terror and economically. The ones I don't respect are the ones that feel we should not attack because we don't have the approval of everyone in the world and we should act multilaterally.

I can see how this war could possibly hurt us, but I see Saddam as a great threat that must be delt with and should have been delt with long ago.

 

You say you have seen no proof Saddam has WMDs, but the undisputed fact is that he DOES. If you were serious about it there is plenty of information proving that he has Biological and Chemical weapons, not even your far left anti-war people can disagree with that. He had some when we left, and he has rebuilt those weapons, and if you honestly think that he doesn't have them, you are a bigger fool than I thought. The evidence of him being on the verge of obtaining nukes is much more limited and open to debate, although I feel that we have suffient evidence that he is very close.

You say it would be embarressing if we went in and didn't find anything, but it would only be embareressing for Saddam because he would be dead for nothing. REMEBER, this is HIS choice. If he doesn't have the weapons, why would he object to UN weapons inspectors going in anywhere at any time? He wouldn't. He could retain his power if he gives up his weapons.

I am glad that somebody showed that we could have much more oil cheaper if we just let Saddam sell it to the US.


There is one anti-war argument I respect, although I do not agree with it. That the US should not go into Iraq because it will harm our own interests, both in the War on Terror and economically. The ones I don't respect are the ones that feel we should not attack because we don't have the approval of everyone in the world and we should act multilaterally. I also don't see that we are doing this to simply punish those that don't follow the US or we are somehow doing this for oil.

I can see how this war could possibly hurt us, but I see Saddam as a great threat that must be delt with and should have been delt with long ago.

 

Some people could get so mad at us that they'd hijack planes and ram them into office buildings.

Oh, wait. That's already happened.

Yes. And our interference in the middle east will likely only spark MORE fantasism and hatred against the u.s. and make recruiting for terrorist organizations even "eaiser" IMO. Yes, I expect there to be a new and LARGER attack inside the U.S. than 9-11 within the next few months. Like I said, I find that MORE of an IMMEDIATE threat than Hussein.

Honestly, I am not your "enemy" on this issue...and don't understand why some people seem to think in these black and white terms. I don't view you guys as enemies or "warmongers" only people with different opinions than mine. I just think there are BETTER and MUCH smarter ways to go about handling Hussein than Bush has planned so far, and I strongly believe that our "war" on terrorism should take priority over ANY action in Iraq. Just my opinion.

 

Not true. MOST of our oil comes from these totalitarian regimes

Bull. About 15% does. Most of our oil comes from south america. The EU gets greater than 35% of its oil from the ME, as well as harboring much larger arab populations than the US. That, along with their proximity to the ME, is IMHO far more responsible for europe's comparably cautious stance on Iraq.

...expect MORE financial problems for the U.S. should we make more enemies over there.

The solution here is simple. Stop pumping billions of dollars in support of the brutal islamic theocracies that make a business of taking our money and then turning a blind eye to the hatred they sometimes willingly breed (Saudi Arabia). The people hate us because they are stoked to hate us; it keeps them occupied. Brilliant tactics if you're running a country where 0.1% of the population controls >95% of the wealth.
We're not dealing with nice people here.

Also, this WILL have a HUGE impact on ISRAEL, which the U.S. will seemingly due ANYTHING to protect.

The same-old song: Israel, Israel, Israel. I have far fewer qualms about the US going out of its way to protect a democratic state with principles and values similar to the West's than appeasing a group of tyrants. Ariel Sharon has mishandled the palestinian crisis, no doubt, and he should go. But Arafat (who was for decades considered by the UN a terrorist, and has never been subject to long-term elections) is just as, if not more, culpable. He has consistently refused to compromise. He needs to go too. His refusal to crack down on groups who consider the occupation 'the existence of Israel', is akin to silent support.

I don't give a hoot about inflaming the 'arab street'. The government-sponsored rioting of uneducated masses doesn't faze me in the least. We heard about the arab street during the Gulf War, before afghanistan, etc. Alarmist talk. The 'arab street' is impotent. And if they ever became a threat, well, a well-placed atomic bomb can rid you of an awful lot of screaming people .

An attack on Iraq, makes Israel a last-ditch-effort target for Iraq, and the U.S. attack WILL be seen by many Arabs as "Zionist-lead" attacks with America as their puppets.

So what? Of course they'll yell the same old "Zionist puppet talk". *rolls eyes*. Same nonsense, different decade. Let me explain something to you, Ferelwookie, that the more left-leaning members of this board seem to have trouble understanding: IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!

That's right, folks. If Israel disappeared tomorrow, two things would happen in short order:

1. The palestinians still wouldn't have a state. All the conquering nations would immediately begin bickering about who go to control the newly 'occupied' land. Arafat would probably get shot, since he's a politically-charged figure, and someone else would simply move in to what was left of Israel and take it over. The palestinians really would be in trouble this time because the media wouldn't be able to play the oppression of them by the "jews". Arabs oppressing arabs? Not our problem, the world would say. Funny about that, isn't it?

2. They would still hate america. Why? 'Cause we still had all the wealth and power. The arab governments are like Malcolm X: their idea of 'justice' is not equality, it's 'they get to take over the United States, we get to be their slaves (after all the jews die and the rest are forcibly converted to Islam or executed), and the world is ruled from the ME. It's about power. If the ME were full of stable democracies that possessed a decent middle-class, the radicals wouldn't have a leg to stand on. This is the fault of the people in charge, and indirectly the US and its allies for supporting these fools.


I believe Israel will face GREAT troubles this time if we attack... and not just from Iraq.

See above.

More proof of how other nations in the region will be effected by a U.S. invasion Of course, Sharon has already stated that IF Saddam attacks

 

All righty, since nobody really said much to my question about this thread earlier, and because of the new developments about Iraq, I'm closing this thread and starting a new one.

See you all there .