We should not attack Iraq

Nuclear weapons used as deterrent is a great way to gain concessions.

A lot of people have been saying that no nation is asking us to come in and save them from Sadam, like they were back at the Gulf War. That is not true. The 4th world nation of the Kurds is pleading for us to save them from Sadam.

But they aren’t anti-Israeli so the liberals don’t like them.

Hi Disclaimer!

But they aren’t anti-Israeli so the liberals don’t like them.

The support in the US for the Israeli is very high

It would not seem that way from the media or around here.

@yourbuttocks:

A lot of people have been saying that no nation is asking us to come in and save them from Sadam, like they were back at the Gulf War. That is not true. The 4th world nation of the Kurds is pleading for us to save them from Sadam.

But they aren’t anti-Israeli so the liberals don’t like them.

Hi Disclaimer!

Also back in 1990 Iraqi forces were bordering and poised to enter Saudi Arabia. This, i suspect, is the other “real reason” the US went into the Gulf - to support/build support by it’s “allies” in Saudi Arabia. This is the reason why the Saudi’s allowed the US to launch it’s attacks from there - it was for their own protection. Afterall, a good defense is a strong offense.

The thought of Saddam firing off a nuclear is bad enough as it is. What use is killing the soldier that lobs the grenade? Saddam knows this and it places him at an awfully good barginning position. Remember when the Soviet Union subjugated the Hungarians durinbg the Cold War? We were powerless to stop them because we knew the Soviets had nukes and they [Hungarians] weren’t worth it to risk nuclear annihilation over. Same goes with Iraq. Would you think twice if Saddam gave the terrorist a nuke to plant in your backyard?

As long as a no connection can be determined, all’s well for Saddam. Bsides, I’m not one to trust Saddam - he’ll use those nuclear weapons to rattle his saber.

@Yanny:

My point is, he wont give anything to the terrorist in my back yard. Because, the second we find out, that Grenade lobber is going to get an airstrike up his ass.

I HATE getting airstrikes up my ass!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:

So now we have to wait until he nukes us before we can retaliate?

In my opinion, I think it’s long overdue that America stops being so passive against these attacks on our freedom. Our political leadership needs to wake up and recognize that MANY people do not like us, or our way of life. They are willing to kill civialians to get their point across, as they’ve already proved.

America needs to take the offensive against threats to our freedom! There is absolutely no reason to sit and wait until we get attacked again, to take action. Saddam is an IRRESPONSIBLE DICTATOR who possesses VERY POWERFUL and DEADLY weaponry. Such a person IS a threat to our safety (both directly and indirectly), regardless of what the liberals care to argue.

Does anyone really want Saddam to stay in power, honestly? (Besides the terrorist regimes) Please, I think the bigger question is why he SHOULD stay in power…

Well D:S - i ask the same question of our leadership as well. At the same time, i would be very offended by another country agreeing with me and replacing our leader with one of their own choosing (particularly if it were a nation with religious, political and cultural ideology so very far apart from our own).
Iraq is not attacking America’s freedom. Also there are many Europeans, Asians, Canadians, etc. who do not like America. This does not make these people threats to America, regardless of the potential weapons they possess.
To follow your reasoning, why stop at Iraq? There are too many other nations with a grudge against the US and the ability to do something about it. Even Canada has many reasons to begrudge the US and we have excellent access to American political etc. venues . . . it would be well for the US to eliminate this potential threat North of the border. Also i believe that Cretien, Bush, and Muggabe are equally nutty and dictatorial as Saddam - maybe a little more intelligent, maybe less, but 2 out of 4 have similar ideologies which means that we’ll be safe . . . for a while. . . .

Iraq is not attacking America’s freedom. Also there are many Europeans, Asians, Canadians, etc. who do not like America. This does not make these people threats to America, regardless of the potential weapons they possess.

Hmmm… and I wonder why? Tell me, why are we going after Iraq than the other countries that simply don’t like us? Could it be because Saddam harbors and contributes money and weapons to terrorist and extremist?

To follow your reasoning, why stop at Iraq? There are too many other nations with a grudge against the US and the ability to do something about it. Even Canada has many reasons to begrudge the US and we have excellent access to American political etc. venues . . . it would be well for the US to eliminate this potential threat North of the border

Yep, those Canadians are dastardly ones - invading other countries, publicly voicing the destruction of Israel, and starving and gassing their own people. That sounds about right. :roll:

@TG:

So now we have to wait until he nukes us before we can retaliate?

:)
Latin helps:

re-taliate…. “re” like in: re-ply, re-action, re-affirm, re-conquista …
usually somethign must happen before you can use any “re”-word…
So, it’s no wonder that you have to wait for him to hurt you before you can retaliate.

@Deviant:Scripter:

In my opinion, I think it’s long overdue that America stops being so passive against these attacks on our freedom. …
America needs to take the offensive against threats to our freedom!

There is a difference between attacks and threats. you can reply with violence against a violent attack. You can reply threatening to being threatened. If you attack while being threatened, you are the aggressor, unless you can prove without doubt that an attack on you was inevitable and would have happened soon. Up to now, no proof of that has been given out (just as Powell says, maybe you should try to convince your allies by showing them your “evidence”).

There is absolutely no reason to sit and wait until we get attacked again, to take action. Saddam is an IRRESPONSIBLE DICTATOR who possesses VERY POWERFUL and DEADLY weaponry. Such a person IS a threat to our safety (both directly and indirectly), regardless of what the liberals care to argue.

George W. is an irresponsible President. Such a person is a threat to the safety, rights and freedoms of everyone who is not american.
ratify Kyoto for mankinds sake!
Still, noone goes out and says: if you don’t stop that, we will come and kill you…… and i know how you would react if someone did!

@TG:

Iraq is not attacking America’s freedom. Also there are many Europeans, Asians, Canadians, etc. who do not like America. This does not make these people threats to America, regardless of the potential weapons they possess.

Hmmm… and I wonder why? Tell me, why are we going after Iraq than the other countries that simply don’t like us? Could it be because Saddam harbors and contributes money and weapons to terrorist and extremist?

like it or not, many other nations do the same thing. Perhaps not at the level of government, but at some level they do. And you’re being very naive to think that Iraq’s gov’t is the only one doing this. America’s allies in the middle east i’m certain do not have the cleanest of hands in this matter.

To follow your reasoning, why stop at Iraq? There are too many other nations with a grudge against the US and the ability to do something about it. Even Canada has many reasons to begrudge the US and we have excellent access to American political etc. venues . . . it would be well for the US to eliminate this potential threat North of the border

Yep, those Canadians are dastardly ones - invading other countries, publicly voicing the destruction of Israel, and starving and gassing their own people. That sounds about right. :roll:

Did Iraq not get appropriately punished for this 10 years ago? How often must its citizens be punished for this? (As was argued earlier, regardless of the kindly American’s attempts to not kill them in an invasion, war inflicts misery on a country’s populace regardless of how they feel about the west.)
Should we not invade Germany and Japan? After all, they did invade other countries, and you can be certain that Germany would not only voice the destruction of Israel, they would be the only country to try and accomplish this.
Agreeing with F_alk on this one. A pre-emptive strike is kind of a nice idea in a way - prevents nasty things from happening for the next couple of years. Until the Iraqi’s are pissed off enough to act rather than jaw.

like it or not, many other nations do the same thing. Perhaps not at the level of government, but at some level they do. And you’re being very naive to think that Iraq’s gov’t is the only one doing this.

So the level of extent doesn’t play a matter here? It seems like there is no distinction made nor is there the idea that Iraq will be the only likely target. The naivety comes from the fact that we would be powerless to stop it.

Did Iraq not get appropriately punished for this 10 years ago? How often must its citizens be punished for this? (As was argued earlier, regardless of the kindly American’s attempts to not kill them in an invasion, war inflicts misery on a country’s populace regardless of how they feel about the west.)

If you ask me Iraqi people got much more than it deserved. And it just isn’t the “victor’s” fault but also Saddam himself. How often must its citizens be punished for this?

Saddam is not worth attacking. There are far worse places to be afraid of. North Korea, some Canadians, China.

Those terrorist cells there sure are dastardly!

And there WILL be a very large number of casualties this time. We’re not going to see open tank clashes in the desert. Saddam has dug in outside and inside of Bagdad. Its going to be a war of Street fighting. Imagine the battle of Stalingrad. He’s going to use civilians as shields, and make a damn good show of doing it. And when the time is ripe, he’ll unleash those weapons. He’s gonna do every damn thing he can do to survive.

I can neither confirm or deny this as the general battle plans have not been laid out yet. It can be a simple Insertion method using special units operatives and intelligence or a massive war, it hasn’t been said yet. As for Stalingrad - tell me, what was the bridge of technology from then until now? As for number of casualities, Saddam said this about the Gulf War - looks liked we proved him wrong.

However, if he provokes us, he has less time to prepare. Less ammunition to stockpile, less time to build trenches. Less time to train his troops in streetfighting. However, that time may never come, if we’re smart.

Not exactly sure what is meant by this. Usually the provoker brings his own bite to go with his park (ex WWII).

71% of the British population is against their involvement in our attack of Iraq. Only 12% are for it, the rest undecided. There goes our biggest Ally.

Tell me, has push yet made his case to the British population and spoke to them in formal address?

Saudi Arabia will only let us use their Air Bases for enforcing the current No Fly Zones, and nothing else. Russia will lend us no help here, mainly their help would be in information gathering and diplomacy. No help is coming from Germany or France obviously. Kuwait won’t let us use their air bases, and only use their territory for defensive action. Turkey is gone until being admitted to the EU, they want their German and French support.

Intelligence members have already planned around Saudi Arabia. Russia’s support is doubtful as they are expected to sign a economic treaty with Iraq. However, Kuwait is willing though cautious, so I’m not exactly where you got that information from. [No friend of Saddam Kuwait has expressed reservations about a U.S. attack but would likely help in the event of military action. There already are thousands U.S. Army soldiers are based in Camp Doha near Kuwait City]. Sporadic talks have occured with Turkey off and one - though it is still early to tell. However this more has to do with the future of the Kurds than the European Union.

[Blair has been supportive but cautious
French President Jacques Chirac has said that any military action against Iraq be decided by the U.N. Security Council.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called on the White House to consult fully with allies on its plans.]

So we’re going to operate this entire war off an Aircraft carrier or three. That limits what we can do by a lot. That means its going to be a ground war. How are we going to get troops in there? An amphibious invasion from Afganistan and Bahrain? Marching through the deserts of Jorden? From the mountains of Turkey? All of which stretch supply lines and give Saddam a huge heads up. We’re not talking the Taliban here, Saddam has the best military in the Persian Gulf. Most of it American.

Chances are the Americans will not be operating from an “Aircraft carrier or three.” An amphibious invasion from Bahrain with the 4,000 troops stationed there might work or at least tie up resources in Iraqi as the Marines did in the previous action.

Lets do something that matters. How about establishing a full on democracy in Egypt and Jorden. How about aiding the starving people in Ethiopia? How about working on issues that matter, not political issues.

Oh, but that would mean foreign intervention and the world hates that. We do help feed the people in Africa so that is an issue that does matter.

Dick Cheney gave a speech a few days ago. Probably more hard on Iraq than Bush’s speeches, he openly said diplomacy has ended. Although I don’t think this is an offical statement, Bush has long stopped thinking of diplomatic solutions. All of the people who went to Iraq in 91 are opposed to the war. Even Colin Powell is

Probably more hardlined than anything - I wouldn’t expect this yet to be counted as an official statement. I do think that these talks will help. Today, Sept. 3rd, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz was willing to talk about the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq.

A recent poll by Newsweek showed 51% of Americans are opposed to an attack on Iraq. Let me quote our favorite host of the daily show.

Really?

Newsweek
Should America launch a ground invasion of Iraq?

• 38827 responses
  Yes. Saddam Hussein is a serious threat and must be stopped
  41%
  No. it would put too many lives at risk
  27%
  Maybe. But only with the support of other nations
  32%

Also, within the last six months, the ABC News-Washington Post Poll showed 72 percent supporting a U.S. invasion of Iraq. The FOX News-Opinion Dynamics Poll also has 72 percent supporting it. The least support for an attack comes from an NBC News-Wall Street Journal Poll showing only 57 percent in favor of attacking Iraq.