We should not attack Iraq

@F_alk:

@Deviant:Scripter:

(1)…He won’t hesitate at all to unleash some type of warhead on Israel. …

(2)…If the containment system had worked, then we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in now. If the so-called “containment” of Saddam was so effective, then why is in possession of such terrible weapons? …

(3)…The United States and Israel have un-controvertible evidence that shows a direct link between Saddam and the Palestinian suicide bombers. He has funded, trained, and armed these homocidal and suicidal bombers. How much more do you have to do to be classified as a “terrorist.”??

D:S,
would you prefer the Iraq to unleash all the deadly weapons you presume it possesses (see (1) and (2)?
Can you give me an assessment of the risk that they will be used in the case the Iraq is attacked and in the case the Iraq is not attacked?

Assuming (3), the Iraq works hand in hand with terrorists…. do you think Saddam is so stupid, that he wouldn’t give half his arsenal to terrorists should he die an unatural death? (And let the next leader keep the other half for self defense)…

I mean, you have played a fascist regime (on A&A), why can’t you think for a second and “play” the Iraq?
Then you would see, that everything Saddam does makes “perfect sense”. And attacking him doesn’t.

And PS: if the US and Israel have this proof, then it must be one of those leftists world conspiracies, as i have never heard anything of that in any news available…

No question about it F_alk, there will be a bigger COW risk if we invade. That’s just how war is. I’d rather that risk be now, with his current weapons capacity, then later when things will only be worse. (I’m speaking under the likely scenario of Saddam defying UN inspectors. :wink:)

Actually, I’ve never played a fascist regime in A&A. In fact, I’ve never even played A&A. I just come here for the debates. :)

@EmuGod:

History has proven time and time again that America’s policy of non-interference in world affairs until they become personal has not worked. Hundreds died on the Lusitania in 1917, 2400 died at Pearl Harbor on the “date which will live in infamy” (December 7, 1941) and over 5000 on September 11, 2001. Each time the attack is worse and worse. A biological attack could wipe out 80% of a city such as Los Angeles very quickly. The time has come to break history’s repetition and to wake up early to smell the coffee.

5000 people did not die on Sept. 11. The number is closer to 2800. (40 were on flight 93 in Pa., and the latest count of the WTC is 2,797.) And it bears repeating: there is absolutely no reason to think Iraq had anything to do with the attacks of Sept. 11. We knew Germany sunk the Lusitania, we knew Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The current situation is different. Indead, the current situation is unique in that our enemy is not a foreign state, but a global cabal of murderous religious fanatic.

Attacking Iraq is silly. Saddam is as much of a threat today as he has been any time over the past 10 years. Why is it an issue now?

Because George W wants an Enemy upon which to focus national attention for political purposes. Has no one seen “Wag the Dog”? And of course, the military industry desparately needs government contracts, and of course all that precious oil that the American armed forces can seize.

About 340 Allied troops died in the Gulf War, in a war that took place mostly in Kuwait and the deserts of Iraq, rather than urban warfare. In 1991, it was clear to all that the war would end if Saddam consented to the twelve UN resolutions which focused on Iraq departing Kuwait. Now, it is about “regime change.” That means bombing Baghdad and every other Iraqi city, and then storming it with ground forces. That means something akin to “unconditional surrender.” Many more than 340 Allied troops are going to die, (and who knows how many innocent Iraqi civilians) and I do not see the point of sacrificing that many.

Instead of focusing time, money, and lives on ousting Saddam, the US and its allies should concentrate on destroying al Qaeda – you know, al Qaeda, the scumbags who we know actually do threaten America! It seems that George W has become frustrated that al Qaeda is such a difficult target to hit, so he has focused on Iraq because we know where that is.

Keep in mind that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was premised on mistruths. (President Johnson informed Americans that North Vietnam had attacked US naval vessels twice in August of 1965 without provocation. It’s now clear that one of those “attacks” never happened. The other probably did, but it wasn’t unprovoked – the USS Maddox was using radar etc. to assist the South Vietnamese navy attack North Vietnamese targets.) I don’t know why I should believe today’s administration when they try to convince me that Iraq presents a clear and present danger.

Moreover, I cannot agree that America’s “policy of non-interference in world affairs until they become personal has not worked.” By staying out of WWI and WWII until late in the game, the US suffered far fewer casualties and lost a lot less resources as compared to other combatants (e.g., Britain, Russia, China), but after both world wars the US gained considerable amounts of clout and enjoyed boomtime economies. So in that regard, USA’s style “worked” well for America, although not so well for many of USA’s allies, especially Britain who had to hold off Hitler all by itself for a while there before USA and USSR got involved. Compare that to Vietnam, where the US “interfered” quite a bit. I’m not sure if the Vietnam War worked well for anyone.

Finally, if concern for Israel is a motivating factor, keep in mind that Saddam did not launch Scuds at Israel until after the Allied attack in 1991. And in 1991, George Sr. pled with Israel and got the commitment that Israel would not retaliate, thereby threatening the unity of the Coalition, which included Islamic nations like Syria. Today, an invasion of Iraq might very well provoke Iraqi attacks against Israel. Today, there is no Coalition to undo, and I think it highly likely that Sharon would retaliate. In that region, it would not take much to escalate into a full-blown regional conflict…

In 1991, it was clear to all that the war would end if Saddam consented to the twelve UN resolutions which focused on Iraq departing Kuwait.

Sure, but he didn’t comply. :-?

Instead of focusing time, money, and lives on ousting Saddam, the US and its allies should concentrate on destroying al Qaeda – you know, al Qaeda, the scumbags who we know actually do threaten America! It seems that George W has become frustrated that al Qaeda is such a difficult target to hit, so he has focused on Iraq because we know where that is.

We’re more than capable of fighting against both of these forces. :roll:

Guest - excellent summary. (note: Britain had the full support of her former colonies)
D:S - he did comply to an extent and for quite a while. How long must Iraq be “inspected”? Forever?
I agree, however, that every effort should be made to get inspectors into every part of the country short of sending a bunch of people with guns in there to kill a bunch of people.
Also although the US is capable of taking on both tasks, why unnecessarily risk the lives, spend the cash, and garner bad “karma”? Especially when the world happily supports the war on Al Queda (including increasing groups of Muslims following Bali, i’m guessing).

Let’s not kid ourselves here. I think Bush giving Saddam a huge opportunity to save himself and his country from devastation by merely accepting the terms of the resolution that Bush will put before the United Nations.

Here is Saddam’s opportunity. We’ll see what the outcome is (although most of us can probably guess correctly.)

I would agree to sending inspectors back in if they were armed with a military escort (allied military, not Iraqi soldiers.) And they’d also have unfettered acces to anywhere in the country, and without giving prior notice to Hussein. Logically, this seems like the only reasonable and most effective way to conduct a disrmament of Saddam.

Although, on the other hand, we’re not solving a whole host of other problems that Saddam himself poses, most of which will only be solved by his removal.

you know D:S - i’m beginning to think that the premise behind “manifest destiny” is very under-rated :roll:

@Deviant:Scripter:

Let’s not kid ourselves here. I think Bush giving Saddam a huge opportunity to save himself and his country from devastation by merely accepting the terms of the resolution that Bush will put before the United Nations.

Here is Saddam’s opportunity. We’ll see what the outcome is (although most of us can probably guess correctly.)

Even “neutral” countries say that the resolution brought up by GWB and Blair could never fully be followed, no matter how hard the Iraq tried. I prefer the french way: two resolution, no automatism of war in the first.

Why is it so hard for the USA to accept that one? Because there is a real chance / opportunity for Saddam to save himself maybe?

@F_alk:

Even “neutral” countries say that the resolution brought up by GWB and Blair could never fully be followed, no matter how hard the Iraq tried. I prefer the french way: two resolution, no automatism of war in the first.

Why is it so hard for the USA to accept that one? Because there is a real chance / opportunity for Saddam to save himself maybe?

Of course it’s possible for Iraq to accept the terms of the agreement. It’s highly unlikely that they will not however, but don’t confuse the two. What points of the resolution do you feel are impossible?

The French way. LOL.
Do the French hold the responsibility of protecting anybody besides themselves?

Just becuase USA is playing tough with Saddam, doesn’t mean that it’s wrong or even unfair. Remember, Saddam had almost ten long years to comply. His second chance, we’re not going be as leniant.

@Deviant:Scripter:

Of course it’s possible for Iraq to accept the terms of the agreement. It’s highly unlikely that they will not however, but don’t confuse the two. What points of the resolution do you feel are impossible?

I am not neutral: i am biased. Therefore i will not answer that question, as you would not think …
they were impossible.

The French way. LOL.
Do the French hold the responsibility of protecting anybody besides themselves?

Who do you protect?
Who do you claim to protect?
Who do you think oyu really protect?
Who of the ones you think you protect needs or asked for protection??

Just becuase USA is playing tough with Saddam, doesn’t mean that it’s wrong or even unfair. Remember, Saddam had almost ten long years to comply. His second chance, we’re not going be as leniant.

“Playing tough” is different from “wanting to see dead”.

Man, if you hadn’t disqualified yourself in another thread, i would have answered more seriously.

“Playing tough” is different from “wanting to see dead”.

Who said dead? Bush is simply saying that he cannot rule that regime anymore. Saddam is bringing the death part upon himself.

I am not neutral: i am biased. Therefore i will not answer that question, as you would not think …
they were impossible.

Again, please tell me which points you think are impossible. Improbable, Yes, but not impossible.

@Deviant:Scripter:

“Playing tough” is different from “wanting to see dead”.

Who said dead? Bush is simply saying that he cannot rule that regime anymore. Saddam is bringing the death part upon himself.

Oh my……

Again, please tell me which points you think are impossible. Improbable, Yes, but not impossible.

Well, i suppose you don’t have the original paper about that at hand, the actual proposal… do you?
If you have, i couldn’t find it in this quick time neither on the whitehouse website nor the UNs … so, if you could help me out…

@F_alk:

@Deviant:Scripter:

“Playing tough” is different from “wanting to see dead”.

Who said dead? Bush is simply saying that he cannot rule that regime anymore. Saddam is bringing the death part upon himself.

Oh my……

What?
Did the UN not give Saddam plenty of time to disarm?
Did Bush & Blair not submit a resolution to the UN?
Did Bush not get approval from Congress?

If Saddam was to voluntarily resign and move to a neutral country, I guarantee you we wouldn’t be invading Iraq.

Again, please tell me which points you think are impossible. Improbable, Yes, but not impossible.

Well, i suppose you don’t have the original paper about that at hand, the actual proposal… do you?
If you have, i couldn’t find it in this quick time neither on the whitehouse website nor the UNs … so, if you could help me out…

Sure, I’ll find that for you. :wink:

@Deviant:Scripter:

The French way. LOL.
Do the French hold the responsibility of protecting anybody besides themselves?

Just becuase USA is playing tough with Saddam, doesn’t mean that it’s wrong or even unfair. Remember, Saddam had almost ten long years to comply. His second chance, we’re not going be as leniant.

Yes, the French do protect others - and not just former protectorates (vis a vis the French foreign legion). They provide services through the UN’s peacekeeping force just like everyone else. True their WWII record is not sparkling, but neither is the US. Forget for a moment our feelings about Frenchmen, they do have their uses :)
(Recently they saved a group of schoolchildren - many of them Americans) held hostage in Africa (Ivory coast? I forget already).
And w.r.t. Saddam not complying, my gut is that he’s sick and tired of others telling him how to run his country and who to allow in or not, bombing him, etc. If i were him, i’d tell the US to f**k off too.
And second chance? What second chance? The first time he invaded Kuwait (a country not really backing the US right now) and prepared to invade Saudi Arabia (ditto). This time he’s guilty of not allowing weapons inspectors into his palaces - well, regardless of how worried the US is that he might well be harbouring weapons, if i were him, i’d say “ok, so i invaded Kuwait and you bombed my country back into the stone ages and now we have nothing - little money, little food, next-to-no medical supplies - now you want to rob us of the little dignity we have? Fine - bring it on, and i’ll see how many of you i can take down with me” - IF i were him.

(Recently they saved a group of schoolchildren - many of them Americans) held hostage in Africa (Ivory coast? I forget already).

Ok, then I commend them on that. I’m sorry. :(

my gut is that he’s sick and tired of others telling him how to run his country and who to allow in or not, bombing him, etc.

We’re not telling him how to run his country, we’re telling him what he’s not allowed to do. These judgements against his way of ruling are not simply our moral beliefs, they happen to be international law and human rights violations across the board.

If i were him, i’d tell the US to f**k off too.

…and if you were in possession of chemical and biological weapons, and sitting in the most unstable region in the world, then we’d be coming after you also. :wink:

And second chance? What second chance?

I was referring to the second chance that F_alk wants to give Saddam to play around with us.

now we have nothing - little money, little food, next-to-no medical supplies

Well, the Iraqi people don’t have much. Saddam is living the high life, mainly because he siphons off the foreign aid and taxes to pay for his lifestyle. He’s not as innocent as you portray him… :-?

oh, i was 19 during Desert Storm, and i have a good memory - i know that Saddam’s not innocent. It’s the BABY with the bathwater that i’m worried about (having said that, if you had me with a sniper rifle and Saddam lined up in my sights, i couldn’t pull the trigger anyway).

@Deviant:Scripter:

What?
Did the UN not give Saddam plenty of time to disarm?
Did Bush & Blair not submit a resolution to the UN?
Did Bush not get approval from Congress?

@1): yes
@2): No! It was not yet officially submitted to the Security Council!
@3): what has internal, national politics to do with international politics and warfare? Does the Congress rule supreme over the UN?

Sure, I’ll find that (original paper) for you. :wink:

thanks for that.

@Deviant:Scripter:

my gut is that he’s sick and tired of others telling him how to run his country and who to allow in or not, bombing him, etc.

We’re not telling him how to run his country, we’re telling him what he’s not allowed to do. These judgements against his way of ruling are not simply our moral beliefs, they happen to be international law and human rights violations across the board.

Can you punish a criminal with a criminal act?
If you do not wait for the UN approval, then an attack on the Iraq is criminal.
And telling someone what not to do is effectively telling him what to do.
Do you think the people in the former GDR were free? They just had a lot of things that they were not allowed to do… did the party with that not tell the people how they had to live?

If i were him, i’d tell the US to f**k off too.

…and if you were in possession of chemical and biological weapons, and sitting in the most unstable region in the world, then we’d be coming after you also. :wink:

Well the US would tell anyone the same, who tried on them what they try on the Iraq. The only exception is the “most unstable region in the world”… :)
Who watches the watchman?

And second chance? What second chance?

I was referring to the second chance that F_alk wants to give Saddam to play around with us.

Second chance, last chance, yes, i am willing to give people a second chance in the face of the alternatives here.
But i give him not a chance to play around again, but a chance to change, save his ass, not lose his face. Especially the last is something that (even it seems to be one of the US’s major flaws as well: outstanding pride) is an important thing in many non-western cultures.

what has internal, national politics to do with international politics and warfare? Does the Congress rule supreme over the UN?

Well, it’s sounds like you guys are making this a “Bush vs. the world” situation, when in fact Congress HAS approved the use of military action. My point is that Bush is not simply a lone-gun going after Saddam cowboy style.

Can you punish a criminal with a criminal act?

Yes…capital punishment. :wink:

Who watches the watchman?

Interesting point. :)

I heard on the radio today that tourism is down (30%in some cities) in many parts of the country (Phoenix, Atlanta and Orlando were named specifically.)
From this I’d say the country feels insecure and is staying home. One way the president is working on the economy is by trying to give the Office of Homeland Security some teeth with which to work. However, the illegitimately Democrat controlled Senate (thank you Senator Jeffords!) will not allow Bush to juggle staff in a non-union setting. Though FDR was given approval to do so by the full congress of his time.
Most attacks mentioned here are economic blows to our countries …
the WTC … the Bali night club … The French (it was just a normal case of oil blowing up on its own) oil tanker. All countries in the fight will need to tighten security.