We should not attack Iraq

What the poppulation in the US think about an eventual attack of Iraq ?

@Yanny:

I’m getting fed up watching President W. Busch infringe upon my civil rights. He is acting like a Hypocrit, a Dictator, and is not abiding by our Country’s laws. If I could make the choice, I’d impeach him, but I can’t.

President Busch somehow got it into his head that he needs to attack Iraq. At this point, if we do attack it looks like it will take place around Late October early November, election time. Any analyst will tell you attacking Iraq is a political issue, and is not important to our national security.

Congress, except for a minority of Republican busch supporters, completely opposes attacking Iraq. Our Allies, even such names as Turkey and Britain, are against attacking Iraq. In fact, if we do attack Iraq we’re unlikely to have a decent bombing base.

Ousting Saddam would destabilize the entire Mid East. The Countries of Iran and Israel would become the regional powers. Without Iraq’s military in the picture, there is no one to threaten Israel. Israel could attack Lebanon, Syria, and Jorden without any trouble. Iran would likely seize up a large portion of the former Iraq. This will set in place a powerful country, more ruthless than Iraq itself.

In Iraq itself, its likely 3 groups, maybe even independant states, will arise. The Southern Islaamic Fundalmentalists are willing to rise up and attack Saddam, but doing so would require the US to arm these people. This will create another Taliban. In the North, the Kurds will likely become part of Turkey, no big deal there. As I have already mentioned, Iran is likely to seize a large portion of Middle Iraq, including important Oil wells.

This is not 1991. Saddam has not made any aggressive action toward the United States. We do not have the Military Force, nor the Allies we did back then. Our Economy is much worse. Busch needs to forget about stupid Politics like this.

but do you honestly believe that Israel would begin attacking these other arab nations? To me this seems less likely than the idea of renewed attempts to stabilize Israeli-Arab relations by the remaining Arabic countries as well as Israel - regardless of Sharon’s current missives.
I agree, however, that unless Bush has overwhelming intelligence proof that he is willing to share with the rest of the world, that he would attack Iraq alone.

I don’t believe Isreal to be an especailly expantionist nation. The only reason it has ever gained any territory from it’s inception was to setup sort of buffer areas between it and the various hostile nations sorrounding it, and only when threatened by hostile military campaigns against it. Most Arab nations have learned by now that tangling with Isreal is a bad idea and tolerates it’s existance.
I also believe that invading Iraq is a bad idea. Why should the US invade a country that it is on less than friendly terms with? Where is it stated that every state must suck up to the current superpower? The Iraqis are not threatening the US or any of it’s allies, they simply hold a low opinion of us.

sure it happens durring the elections. The elections fall in November. November thru Febuary is the best time to fight in the desert. It being winter and all.

And of course a political analyst will tell you this matter is all about politics, they are political analysts.

And how is G.W.B. infringing on your rights yanny?

I’m with Jazz here. We need to oust Saddam as soon as possible. He poses a direct threat to our national security by his mere possession of biological and chemical weapons, not to mention his desire to accumulate nuclear weapons. He used them on his own people, what’s to stop him from using them on us?

well said izcoder. well said.

Can Saddam even get whatever weapons of mass destruction he might have to the US? Surely he knows that any sort of attack directly on the US or one of it’s close allies would bring about his destruction; I don’t believe even Saddam is that stupid.

Insanity and Stupidity are separate things.

@Yanny:

Any analyst will tell you attacking Iraq is a political issue, and is not important to our national security.

I’m not so sure about this. In fact some even believe he helped support 9/11 and that his NBC facilities will help to fund the terrorist war effort.

Congress, except for a minority of Republican busch supporters, completely opposes attacking Iraq. Our Allies, even such names as Turkey and Britain, are against attacking Iraq. In fact, if we do attack Iraq we’re unlikely to have a decent bombing base.

If this is true, then Bush can’t attack in the first place. Don’t you need a majority vote by the Congress before approving on this?

Ousting Saddam would destabilize the entire Mid East. The Countries of Iran and Israel would become the regional powers. Without Iraq’s military in the picture, there is no one to threaten Israel. Israel could attack Lebanon, Syria, and Jorden without any trouble. Iran would likely seize up a large portion of the former Iraq. This will set in place a powerful country, more ruthless than Iraq itself.

I’m not exactly sure Israel would go “power hungry” once Iraq is removed. Iran, maybe, though I doubt they’ll risk attacking their Middle East “allies.” Also, I’m not sure Iran can take a large portion of Iraq if Bush plans to keep the country intact or seperate it into independent states (each friendly to the US of course).

In Iraq itself, its likely 3 groups, maybe even independant states, will arise. The Southern Islaamic Fundalmentalists are willing to rise up and attack Saddam, but doing so would require the US to arm these people. This will create another Taliban. In the North, the Kurds will likely become part of Turkey, no big deal there. As I have already mentioned, Iran is likely to seize a large portion of Middle Iraq, including important Oil wells.

Well I’m one who believes that the Kurds should have their own country. They are one of the most oppressed people in the world (Saddam’s genocide didn’t help much either), probably moreso than Israel.

This is not 1991. Saddam has not made any aggressive action toward the United States. We do not have the Military Force, nor the Allies we did back then. Our Economy is much worse. Busch needs to forget about stupid Politics like this.

Yes, this is a major problem. I don’t know if Bush can get approval from the Congress if Saddam has committed to any acts of “unwarranted aggression.” We do have the Military Force (though maybe not the the Allies), which is much more advanced that in 1991 and battle ready since Afganistan. As for the economy, I’m not exactly sure what you’re talking about, as it’s much stronger now than in 1991 (if you compare stock market levels and the like).

@FinsterniS:

What the poppulation in the US think about an eventual attack of Iraq ?

I have not firmly made up my mind on this yet. It’s still a little too early to tell.

@Yanny:

Saddam will only use his Chemical/Biological weapons if he feels a direct threat to his life has been posed. If we attack him, we can expect thousands of casualties, even more death to innocents, and little gain. Of course, we’ll win, there is little doubt there. But unlike 1991, we’re invading Iraq itself. Saddam will be a cornered rat, he will bite.

You want someone who poses a direct threat to not only our national security and our allies? Go after North Korea. You want a Humanitarian Mission? Go to Sudan. You want to be releected? Go to Iraq.

This is true. That is why it takes many months of planning and intelligence gather for an operation of this size to take place. Of course Saddam has led to the death of many innocents already. Yes, North Korea will have to be delt with in the near future. However, the are much more openly friendly to us than Iraq (which I think it was Stupid of Bush to call them the “Axis of Evil”). As for Iraq, it is more of a combination of the two.

I’d love to see Saddam out of action. He almosthad nuclear weapons in 1981 but Israel wiped out his nuclear reactor. The world condemned Israel for this, but were grateful for it hwne the Gulf War broke out. Imagine what would have happened if Saddam had nuclearweapons when he occupied Kuwait! We can’t let him get nuclear weapons again. Iraq must go. Next time, he might use nuclear weapons.

I dont think that President Bush needs congress to approve the action. He would need congress if he wanted to declare war. But the President has teh authority to deploy troops. Similar to the manner Clinton used to send troops to Bosnia or Cosavo.

Yes, but there’s a limit on the number of troops he can deploy (much shorter than 250,000 he’s expected to need) and how many additional troops he can send (which he might need, if Iraq doesn’t give up that easily). That resolution was passed during the Vietnam War.

If America and her allies knocked Saddam out back in 1991, we wouldn’t be worrying about this shit now.

If only someone could have peered into the future and avioded any unpleasantness for the entire human race; aaahh! Golden Path. I’ve been Reading too much Frank Herbert :)

Yes, Ghoul, but the threat of nuclear devastation was a lot more real back then. Actions have been taken since then to destabilize his nuclear posession.

First of all, if we wait for Saddam to make the first move, we’ll be up shit’s creek without a paddle…so to say. That’s how we got into 9/11 in the first place, we can’t sit around and wait for threats such as Saddam to materialize into more American casualties. The bigger you let him get, the more danger he poses to our national security. There are certainly ways to reduce the expected amount of American casualties, some of which include funding anti-Saddam forces inside of Iraq itself. Sort of like we did with the Northern Alliance in Afganhistan, only on a much bigger scale.

As for not being able to get chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons to us, that’s rediculuous. Of course he can. America has way too many vulernabilities still.