We should not attack Iraq

@yanny:

Read a book. Any Historian will tell you that President Clinton downsized our Military so much that we couldn’t do another Desert Storm, even with the allies. But, Saddam’s military was also weakened. However, the Gulf War was fought in Kuwait, this war will take place in Iraq, his home terf.”

Yes, we all know about that buffoon’s attempts to downsize the military. However, with our new president and the events after 9/11, Bush has taken great aims at beefing up a “smarter” military. We still have the strongest, most technological advanced military in the world, no doubt. Also, like you said, Saddam’s army isn’t as powerful as it once was. I predict 7-9 regular divisions? Also, the scope on how to fight wars has changed dramatically. War is fought in the air, faraway, and from intelligence more now than ever. We really didn’t need the overpowering land force that we had in Desert Storm (3 to 1 odds). At best, America will need to use its regular and elite forces, not having to draw upon reserve manpower.

Technically, Bush can dodge some laws and go into Iraq without Congress’s permission, he would just have to watch his vocabulary, not using words like “war”. Congress can also block Bush from going, but that requires a 2/3s vote in the House and Senate, which is difficult at best do to Partisan Politics.

Chances are that Bush will still call upon the power of the Congress. (Looking at stats of a recent CNN/Time poll, the American public is with him, making it a no brainier for those wanted to be reelected).

Saddam has no way of delivering Nukes/Chemical/Biological weapons to us. In fact, even when he fired scuds at the Israelies, not a single Israeli was killed do to the extreme inaccuracy and the Patriot Missle System.

Iraq had absolutely no connection with 9/11, there is no proof at all that he even knew about it. He does not have the Uranium needed to build a nuclear bomb, and he has no means of obtaining it short of buying it from our ‘ally’ Russia.

With the disintegration of Soviet Russia, the threat of nuclear prevalence is more common now than ever. Plus, we have no idea what Saddam has been cooking for 10 years inside his hidden palaces and underground plants. It’s a damn shame we didn’t clean up a lot of his mess after the previous Desert Storm (in fact, Saddam retain much of his NBC capability)

Afganistan was barely a fight for our troops. Less than 20,000 troops took place in the fight, mainly people operating Cruise Missles and training local military forces. If we do something similar with Iraq, we’ll end up with local Islaamic Extremist warlords ruling Iraq.

I’m sure Bush will take great pains to make sure this does not happen again. Also, I’m sure Bush will not rely on arming these “Islamic Extremist.” Afghan is in a very different political situation than Iraq, mainly that Islamic Extremist have little chance of overthrowing the Iraqi government even with US air support. Must likely the crux will have to come from the US military.

I don’t know where to start. :D

Yanny, first of all Congress does support a regime change. For a while they have been trying to decide how big a force to send in and when to do it.

Second, Bush is not a Nazi. You may disagree with his policies, but TIPs isn’t exactly a police state. Not that I agree with it, but similiar programs are already in place, in fact the postal service has it’s own system for reporting strange behaviour.

Third, Bush is already putting together international support. He just got Russia, in fact. He already has nations like Britian, FRANCE, and Turkey.

Fourth, Moses is right that Iraq is baisically a push over. One on one Israel could take them. In Afganistan, the Taliban was crushed almost completely by airstrikes. The Northern Alliance was almost impident. All they had to do was garrison towns vacated by the Taliban.

Fifth, Yanny, name all the dictators worse than Sadam.

Why do you highlight France ?

And why do you quote Einstein while you don’t even know what “god” mean to him… it’s out of context.

Fourth, Moses is right that Iraq is baisically a push over. One on one Israel could take them. In Afganistan, the Taliban was crushed almost completely by airstrikes. The Northern Alliance was almost impident. All they had to do was garrison towns vacated by the Taliban.

Well I still wouldn’t call them a pushover, they just aren’t nearly as powerful as they were 10 years ago (no matter how much money he strips from humanitarian aid to feed and equip his army). Also, the problem with airstrikes is running the risk of civilian deaths, especially since Iraq is much more densely populated than Afghan. I expect a lot of house to house fighting from our Special Forces. But at least this time. Isreal can help us out! With both intelligence networks working together, Saddam will have a tough time avoiding our feelers. As for Saddam, he’s not our only objective. What use is removing Saddam if one of his generals or sons will take over in the near future? We have to restructure Iraq and make sure his terrible acts won’t be committed again.

BTW: France giving us support? Yeah, that’ll be the day. :roll:

NOt only is his army not as powerful, our airstrikes are more effective. We can do more damage per pound than ten years ago. Thus we can drop as many tons as we did ten years ago and do more damage.

And yes, Chirac has given Bush the okay. Not that he is sending troops, but has made it clear that France will not stand in the way/protest, whatever.

Anyway, if Israel and/or Turkey have given us their support, I don’t see what any of the logistics problems of having to invade Iraq.

HOWEVER, as a Conservative, one problem still looms large. Who’s going to pay for all this? Obviously the American people. In Desert Storm, the Gulf War cost us 70 billion dollars. The good part was that the oil rich countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia were able to pick up much of the tab. With the current condition our stockmarket is in, will the American public be ready for this? The good news, this week, our SM has recovered a lot and shows signs of bottoming out (though it’s still a little too early to tell). Come fall, we’ll see if we have rebounded or are still amist an economic recession. Food for thought.

It’s clear that Iraq poses no direct military threat (weapons of mass destruction included) to the US. The US will use the “Hitler Appeasement” analogy to fuel any propaganda towards an attack/invasion of Iraq. The US will also use 9/11 to persuade the US public towards such actions as well. I agree motivations will be mostly political. I believe they will be economic as well. Nothing gets the US economy going like a good war…

“It’s clear that Iraq poses no direct military threat (weapons of mass destruction included) to the US.”

Maybe no direct military threat (doubt that Saddam’s skunk works can cook up an ICBM), but indirectly, the threat is still there. Should we let another attack occur on American soil (or aboard to our soldiers) before we open our eyes?

Right on Moses.

Agreed, however the rest of the world will want Iraq’s hand in it before they’ll agree to an attack/invasion. You’ll have to convince Americans that their son’s, husband’s, and father’s lives that will be lost will be worth the final result.

Our country likes to play cop and referee. We attack only certain terrorist nations and not them all. Again, I don’t see US Marines in Northern Ireland!!!

Yanny

1. what do you base the fact that England and Turkey are a no go?

2. What do you base your casualty figures on?

The main reason that there will be many civilian casualties among Iraqi’s is because Saddam conveniently hides is manufacturing plants and other weaponary facilties underneath houses and cities. A little known fact that the liberal media is so easy to pass by.

I agree with you Moses. History repeats itself ever so foten, especially with American involvement in international problems. America didn’t enter World War 1 until after the sinking ot hte Lusitania, World War 2 after Pearl Harbor and did not truly start to fight Fundamentalist Terrorism utnil after Spetember 11. Each time, the American casualties have increased. Break the pattern and enter the war frrom the beginning. America could have ended World War 1 earlier, defeated Japan and Nazi Germany in World War 2 much earlier without having to suffer the losses at Pearl Harobr and could have avoided 9/11 by starting actions againdt terrorism many years ago. How many more Americans will die the next time? 5,000 died in 9/11. How many more need to die before America wakes up and smells the coffee? 10,000? 100,000? We all know that once America wakes up and begins to intervene that the problem will be solved much faster and that America will make a difference in the final outcome of the problem, in this case, Saddam’s evil regime in Iraq. Read my signatuer that was said by Admiral Yamamoto. It still applies today.

YOu think our troops are bad? Iraqi commanders during the gulf war literally had their troops at gun point. All we have to do is send in the F-16s and Apaches to level Iraqi tank battalions and the Iraqi forces will liquidate. Most troops we sent to Iraq last go around didn’t even see fighting. Many troops during the gulf war remarked that their training was more difficult than actual combat against the Iraqis. Iraq will be a cake walk. We can destroy most of their fighting abillities before the ground troops, significantly superior ground troops, even enter combat.

Yanny, Sadam starves tens of thousands of children to death each year so that he can blame it on the U.S. I don’t see Saudi Arabia, or Castro, doing that!

@yourbuttocks:

Iraq will be a cake walk. We can destroy most of their fighting abillities before the ground troops, significantly superior ground troops, even enter combat.

That is what germany thought at the beginning of the WWI.
France is easy to beat, we have won in 1870/71 easily (in a war that had a limited strategic objective), they surely won’t put up much resitance this time (where it will be an “all-or-out” war, a war that you can’t afford to lose, if you want to stay in existance….)…

So, i think underestimating an enemy is the easiest way to lose a war!

@yourbuttocks:

Most troops we sent to Iraq last go around didn’t even see fighting.

YB…It was 10% out of 500,000 I think that ended up even fighting. Just to back up your arguement… :wink:

I agree with F_alk. Never underestimate the opponent. The great French “superpower” crumbled ot the Germans in 6 weeks in World War 2 when panzers poured through the Ardennes. Overconfidence brings about the downfall of even the greatest powers.

The Iraqi people will fight us to the last man, woman, and child. Kuwait was different. This time it’s their survival - Saddam or no Saddam. Casualties will run high, no doubts there. They will die for their homes and Allah…

also it’s just plain rude to go about invading countries etc.
i’m prolly one of the few people that was against the bombing of Serbia (a sovereign country) when there were still other options open. Same thing for Iraq. To commit war on that country would virtually decimate the population. If America was attacked, then aside from the armies established to protect civilian settlements, the army would try to keep battles outside of these settlements. The same would not be true of an attack on Iraq.
Plus you’d kill oil prices. The rest of the Arab world would not “pitch in”, and i don’t think you could count on Israel for very much. Of all of the world leaders, maybe Tony Blair could be relied on (if parliament let him) for support.
bad bad idea. Although i like to say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, sometimes the evidence is not sufficient to prove that.