We should not attack Iraq

What do I propose we do? To start, Force the Saudis and the Egyptians into a democratic government. If they don’t, we threaten to cut off their weapons supply. If their weapons supply is cut off, their country will go into revolution.

I agree.

However, we can contain Saddam Hussein.

No, we can’t. We’ve already tried that for 8 years.

We can keep him from doing anything, and blast a cap on his ass the second he tries to.

Once that SCUD missile is flying towards Israel, a cap in his ass will not save the lives of those hit with that chemical or biological weapon. :-?

Tell me now, why the hell is there not a single other country in complete support of us. Not even Israel will unconditionally follow us into Iraq. Kuwait won’t, and that country was destroyed in 1991.

Well, now Yanni, here you’re just wrong. Britain and Australia are with us. I think Israel would be too, but we’re the ones holding them back from unleashing a can-o-woop-ass on Saddam.

If we beat Saddam Hussein, we are going to have a much worse Government in place.

Says who?

Saddam is the only leader in the region who is not a religious leader.

Obviously. :wink:

Just because Iraq made news in 91, that does not mean Iraq still matters. We need to go after Terrorists, not wannabe facists.

Saddam is a terrorist, by every meaning of the word.

Kinda funny. I can remember the day when people said that the U.S. congress would never allow Bush to attack Iraq. Now they will.

How long before those people are wrong about Europe?

What do I propose we do? To start, Force the Saudis and the Egyptians into a democratic government. If they don’t, we threaten to cut off their weapons supply. If their weapons supply is cut off, their country will go into revolution.

And what will come out of it?

Good, this thread is set to outpace the UN Topic. :)

@Yanny:

No, we can’t. We’ve already tried that for 8 years.

And its worked.

There is a major difference between Saddam and Osama (and his friends). Saddam is predictable. We know what he is doing, what he is going to do, and what he will do.

nce that SCUD missile is flying

towards Israel, a cap in his ass will not save the lives of those hit with that chemical or biological weapon

Not a single SCUD killed a single Israeli in 1991. And 95% of his SCUDs have been destroyed. Not only that, but Israeli air defense systems have doubled in effectiveness.

And why would he launch that SCUD at Israel? I repeat, as I have a million times, Saddam is not suicidal.

Well, now Yanni, here you’re just wrong. Britain and Australia are with us. I think Israel would be too, but we’re the ones holding them back from unleashing a can-o-woop-ass on Saddam.

Britain? No. Only Tony Blair is. And unlike our congress, the British House of Commons has the balls to stand up to their leader. Australia, has only pledged political support, and that means little.

Saddam is a terrorist, by every meaning of the word.

Saddam is an evil man, yes. But he is not a terrorist. He is a dictator, like 80% of the world’s leaders. Yes, he kills his people, like 80% of the World’s Leaders. Yes, he should be shot, like 80% of the worlds leaders.

But he is not a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who blows themself up. Someone who flies a plane into a building. People who President Bush is letting get away.

We could of caught these people by now. We could have Osama Bin Ladin in a noose. I don’t give a sh*t about Saddam. Saddam didn’t kill 3,000 people on 9/11. And the people who did are going to get away with it, and do it again.

Firstly, Saddam isnt the only non-religious leader in the region. Turkey is a non-religious Muslim country that wants to join the EU in order to be as far away from the Arabs as possible. Israel has a non-religious leader.

Turkey will also be threatened by Saddam’s arsenal. Even though tye conduct operations with the IDF, the Turks could still be hit hard by Saddam.

Tell me, Yanny, was Hitler a terrorist? I mean, he killed millions of people.

Not a single SCUD killed a single Israeli in 1991. And 95% of his SCUDs have been destroyed. Not only that, but Israeli air defense systems have doubled in effectiveness.

And why would he launch that SCUD at Israel? I repeat, as I have a million times, Saddam is not suicidal.

He won’t hesitate at all to unleash some type of warhead on Israel. I think he knows that the US will push it’s hardest to keep Israel OUT of the war, despite the Israeli’s being victims.

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? The reasoning of your statement makes no sense.

IMHO: The UN just wants to slip Saddam under the carpet and not do a damn thing about him, regardless of what the consequences will be in a decade from now.

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.”??

@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…

@EmuGod:

Firstly, Saddam isnt the only non-religious leader in the region. Turkey is a non-religious Muslim country that wants to join the EU in order to be as far away from the Arabs as possible. Israel has a non-religious leader.

Israel maybe doesn’t have a religious leader, but still they are have at least as many fundamentalists as any arab nation. Don’t they even pay scholars of the Talmud and Thora and excempt them from the military service? Don’t they have even an ultra-orthodox party?
I wouldn’t call that a clear distinction of state and religion, and that is important for me when judging nations.
Arab nations have fundamentalists parties as well, and just in a very few they are at all or even constantly part of the government.
Maybe the leader of Israel is not religious, the state itself is!

@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: