We should not attack Iraq

@bossk:

No, terrorists are different than sovereign nations. You see, Iraq is a sovereign nation, terrorists are not. Going around toppling sovereign nations is a bad thing. Imposing our will on sovereign nations is bad. Sure Iraq is hostile towards us (or at least it’s leader), but that doesn’t mean we should crush them; I consider that bad. Next we’ll be crushing communists right and left in the US becuase they don’t like the way things are run and have the potential (small, but there) to recreate the government, and that’s scary becuase it’s change. Communists don’t make Americans (most) feel safe, therefor they must go. I can simplify this further, going after Iraq is BAD.

Yesterday Saddam threatened Israel and the United States with biological attacks. I dont think we should give him the chance to put his plan into action.

Well then, Yanny, I guess according to your reasoning America should not have entered World WAr 2 against Germany or Italy and should not have fought the Korean War or even the Persian Gulf War because it was not directly attacked. A load of crock, in my opinion. Thousands of Iraqis may die, but that is better than them dying along with thousands of American civilians and the American soldiers who will fight in Iraq anyway after Iraq attacks the United States with biological weapons. It may be part of Bush’s political interests, but it is also a fact that Iraq is dangerous. Their war with Iran cost the deaths of a million people due to Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. Saddam isn’t bluffing. He will use biological weapons against his enemies. All America has to do is topple Saddam’s regime and leave without imposing any government on Iraq.

So you want to fight the people who attacked us? Why the hell are you going after Iraq? Oh, you want the Saudi’s oil don’t you?

Does it? Saudi Arabia (SA) does control 30% of the world’s known oil reserves (the greatest in the oil rich Middle East). However, SA today provides only 8% of the oil consumed by Americans and only 15% of the US’s crude-oil imports, less than half the amount US imports from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. The Saudis depend far more on US investment. Without oil to fuel his or her economy, SA will totter on the brink of economic collapse. The emergence of a hydrogen fuel cell (if widely adopted by 2008-2010) can erase US’s dependency on foreign oil.

No, terrorists are different than sovereign nations. You see, Iraq is a sovereign nation, terrorists are not. Going around toppling sovereign nations is a bad thing. Imposing our will on sovereign nations is bad. Sure Iraq is hostile towards us (or at least it’s leader), but that doesn’t mean we should crush them; I consider that bad. Next we’ll be crushing communists right and left in the US becuase they don’t like the way things are run and have the potential (small, but there) to recreate the government, and that’s scary becuase it’s change. Communists don’t make Americans (most) feel safe, therefor they must go. I can simplify this further, going after Iraq is BAD.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “we should crush them.” Our main object is to remove Saddam from power, his loyalist (military and political), reorganize the government, and seizes his NBC weapons capacity. This does not mean going around “Death Star” style, murdering every Iraqi civilian, flattening entire residential neighborhoods, destroying every commercial building imaginable, or claiming Iraq has our 51st state. If we can complete those objectives above with the most limited amount deaths and destruction, we will do it. As for the Communist, don’t worry, we’re peace-loving people. :wink:

Your also going to have tens of thousands Iraqi Civilians killed

Civilian lives WILL perish. However, I’m not sure we can draw assumptions about numbers ranging around the “tens of thousands.” Remember, how much the media extravagated the death tolls in the early reports of September 11th? If there’s one thing I know about the media (especially the liberal ones), is that they love to throw around high causality estimates, when in reality, that number was much lover. Josef Stalin said it best, “When you kill one, it is a tragedy; when you kill one million, it is a statistic.”

There was not a Single Iraqi in the planes on September 11th. There were over a dozen Saudis.

On another note, Iraq does support many terrorist organizations with money, training camps, and the technical knowhow. Hamas (which has received a lot of coverage as of late) is largely funded by the Saddam’s assets, along with technical readouts on how to design better, more powerful bombs.

Each time the attack is worse and worse. A biological attack could wipe out 80% of a city such as Los Angeles very quickly.

Hot damn! On a personal cord, can’t let this happen! :evil:

Britain and Turkey are NOT with us on this one. The only British Politician (and his close supporters) that want to go with us is Prime Minister Tony Blair. Tony Blair frequents local political cartoons as a dog in Bush’s lap.

Britain would be a help to our operation, but they aren’t vital to the operation. From what I heard as of late, Turkey has given us their support in marshalling points for the invasion. And lets not forget Kuwait, we have their full backing in case of an invasion.

Our regular military is green, only the most elite special forces have limited combat experience.

As a note, any troops that have not engaged in active battle are considered “green.” By these means 80%, those who fought in the Gulf War would be considered “green.” Yet those troops still preformed brilliant against even Saddam’s crack troops and armored divisions. It is US’s superior training and conditioning (which many other countries do not enjoy) that will keep our men alive.

Saddam does not starve tens of thousands of people to death every year. You need to stop listening to Bush

As a little known fact, yes they do. You don’t need to be a Bush supporter to see this. In UN “Oil-for-Food” Program (allowing Iraq to sell petroleum in exchange for funds for food, medicine, and other humanitarian imports) Hussein has spent only a fraction of the $15 billion generated from the program for food for starving Iraqis, but instead to finance his military arm and supplicated telecommunications equipment. Compare this with before sanctions were introduced, where Iraq used to spend about $3 billon a year on food and medicine imported from abroad. Are the UN sanctions unfair to the Iraqi people? Yes. Are the reparations we force Iraq to pay exploitive? Yes. However, to say that Saddam isn’t a major reason why tens of thousands of Iraqi children starve each month (Saddam esp. likes to target those “unloyal” to him [ex. Kurds, political fractions]) is a major misnomer.

I just learned that Saddam is going to be supplying Palestinian terrorist (eg. Hamas, Hezbala) with biological weapons to use in their bombings against Israeli citizens. Why are so many people playing devil’s advocate with this topic? Bomb the mofo and reinstate a stable and less threatening government!

I just learned that Saddam is going to be supplying Palestinian terrorist (eg. Hamas, Hezbala) with biological weapons to use in their bombings against Israeli citizens.

Yes, Saddam is a large supporter of Palestinian terrorist, especially in the field of bomb making. It’s not surprising even a madman would go this far.

@izcoder:

I just learned that Saddam is going to be supplying Palestinian terrorist (eg. Hamas, Hezbala) with biological weapons to use in their bombings against Israeli citizens. Why are so many people playing devil’s advocate with this topic? Bomb the mofo and reinstate a stable and less threatening government!

how about because “we don’t think it’s right for the US to clean up its messes with explosive and violent means”.

You’re right, cystic crypt. We should sit down and discuss it with Saddam over tea and biscuits. I’m sure the psychopath would be very cooperative. I mean, he simply uses chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds, but we can still discuss his threats and tyr to reach a civilized agreement. When Los Angeles is wiped out, we’ll see what you’ll have to say.

Sorry about using Los Angeles, Moses, I forgot you live there and it makes a good example.

Yanny, you are operating under the assumption that we have to capture and occupy Iraq. All we have to do is take down his command nervous system, maybe destroy some armor. Anti-Sadam forces can take care of the rest.

Its not like we have to destroy and capture the entire Iraqi army.

@EmuGod:

You’re right, cystic crypt. We should sit down and discuss it with Saddam over tea and biscuits. I’m sure the psychopath would be very cooperative. I mean, he simply uses chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds, but we can still discuss his threats and tyr to reach a civilized agreement. When Los Angeles is wiped out, we’ll see what you’ll have to say.

Sorry about using Los Angeles, Moses, I forgot you live there and it makes a good example.

If LA got wiped out?
Look, what we are talking about it wiping out millions of people b/c of one nut job, and his exacting revenge on a country that has messed about in the middle east a few too many times. So LA gets obliterated vs. Iraq gets obliterated? Is that what you’re asking me?
The world needs to wake up to more positive, less knee-jerk/band-aid solutions than it has been applying. So far the answers have been “give them weapons, blow them up, bomb them, apply crippling sanctions”. I think that some places could use a dose of “leave them the hell alone”, or “let’s look at a non-bombing solution to this problem”.
Bizarrely, i’m with Yanny on this one.

by the way, don’t knock tea and biscuits. That may be just the ticket sometimes. Maybe some poison in his tea . . .

I’m nto sayng wipe out IRaq and flatten every living thing. I’m saying dismantle his government whlie trying to inflict as minimal losses as possible. He would inflict as high losses as he could. That’s where the US and Iraq differ. We should remove him and try to help Iraq recover without imposing American ideals on the people.

If LA got wiped out?
Look, what we are talking about it wiping out millions of people b/c of one nut job, and his exacting revenge on a country that has messed about in the middle east a few too many times. So LA gets obliterated vs. Iraq gets obliterated? Is that what you’re asking me?
The world needs to wake up to more positive, less knee-jerk/band-aid solutions than it has been applying. So far the answers have been “give them weapons, blow them up, bomb them, apply crippling sanctions”. I think that some places could use a dose of “leave them the hell alone”, or “let’s look at a non-bombing solution to this problem”.
Bizarrely, i’m with Yanny on this one.

Whoa, I have no idea where you got the “wiping out millions of people” statement from. Even the most liberal estimates don’t even come close to that! As for the other “alternatives” option (tea and biscuits to some), Bush said so himself, no attacks would be made if Saddam is willing to let UN inspectors inside of Iraq for NBC inspections. So far Saddam has been negligent and unwilling to cooperate. I also like to add another to your list of “answers.” Let them invade a country [Kuwait] and threaten the economy of the US before we do anything about it. Let them continually support a wrongful dictator willing to condemn the Western Powers and commence a holy war.

BTW: Los Angeles will stand a thousand years! :wink:

Saddam got into power somehow; he has support. Somebody (and I’ll bet it wasn’t us) wanted him in power, who are we to say that he shouldn’t? And moreover, who is to say that we are more right than Saddam is? I’m not saying I agree with the little dictator’s ideas, beliefs, or actions, but we cannot judge Iraq becuase it doesn’t conform. If Saddam was truely terrible then there would be a revolution (they aren’t terribly hard to come by in the last century, they can’t be that difficult) and a new government would be put in it’s place. Why are we so quick to replace other people’s governments? We aren’t the ones that should be doing that, the oppressed themselves have that honor.

There are many people living in Iraq, especially the Kurds, who want Saddam out of power. He tests his new weapons on Kurds. We have to attack Iraq for humanitarian reasons as well. It is not as easy nowadays to conduct a revolution in a country. Pinpoint aerial bombings, bioogical, nuclear and chemical weapons make it more difficult for the civilians to rise up against the government because they can be mass executed much faster.

@bossk:

Saddam got into power somehow; he has support. Somebody (and I’ll bet it wasn’t us) wanted him in power, who are we to say that he shouldn’t? And moreover, who is to say that we are more right than Saddam is? I’m not saying I agree with the little dictator’s ideas, beliefs, or actions, but we cannot judge Iraq becuase it doesn’t conform. If Saddam was truely terrible then there would be a revolution (they aren’t terribly hard to come by in the last century, they can’t be that difficult) and a new government would be put in it’s place. Why are we so quick to replace other people’s governments? We aren’t the ones that should be doing that, the oppressed themselves have that honor.

OMG. You gonna say the same thing about Osama Bin Laden? He doesn’t conform, but we should leave him alone right? Who are we to judge his actions? Pleeeeease. Wake up and smell the coffee….

To me it just seems like America on occassion acts like the master of a dog. He regularly beats the dog, disciplines it with no rational pattern, trains it poorly, and starves it off and on. Then when the dog snaps, the master has it killed.
Bombing and invading - the classic American kneejerk reaction (unless it’s, say, WWII in which case the reflex takes a while).

This whole idea of not being able to judge other nations because we don’t understand them is a late 20th century form of Pacifist garbage that is used to stop fighting. All it does is escalate the problem, which America has a history of doing. By not getting involved early, America suffers attacks such as Pearl Harbor and September 11. You’re right that America is not perfect, and that it’s horrible to have to crush any enemy regime and to kill people, but other choice is there? When they are coming to get you and you have to make a choice between you and them, you’re going to pick yourself because people have an inborn instinct of survival. Bush doesn’t want to horrible attacks during his presidency, so he’s opting to stop the problem of Iraq before it begins. I say let him do so.

CC, so we regularly beat, discipline with no ration patter, starve, and poorly train Iraq?

@cystic:

To me it just seems like America on occassion acts like the master of a dog. He regularly beats the dog, disciplines it with no rational pattern, trains it poorly, and starves it off and on. Then when the dog snaps, the master has it killed.
Bombing and invading - the classic American kneejerk reaction (unless it’s, say, WWII in which case the reflex takes a while).

That might make sense is somewhere else. But here in reality, Saddam is not a product of us, didn’t belong to us, and his actions are not a result of us.

@CC:

To me it just seems like America on occassion acts like the master of a dog. He regularly beats the dog, disciplines it with no rational pattern, trains it poorly, and starves it off and on. Then when the dog snaps, the master has it killed.

CC, just a few problems with your Analogy. Exactly how are we trying to discipline it [Iraq] with no rational pattern? What is our current “discipline” (neglect) and what is a rational pattern? If you ask me, our foreign policy hasn’t done enough. When’s the last time we regularly “beats the dog?” I’m interested in seeing if “regularly” doesn’t mean “sparingly” in reality. A better metaphor would be a dog that attacks other dogs (or cats), forcing the “master” (assuming this dog even listens to us and we are even “masters” henceforth) to put it to “sleep” (at least the current Iraqi regime).

@Emu:

This whole idea of not being able to judge other nations because we don’t understand them is a late 20th century form of Pacifist garbage that is used to stop fighting.

Warning! Political Correctness is contagious! :)

@Bossk:

Saddam got into power somehow; he has support. Somebody (and I’ll bet it wasn’t us) wanted him in power, who are we to say that he shouldn’t? And moreover, who is to say that we are more right than Saddam is? I’m not saying I agree with the little dictator’s ideas, beliefs, or actions, but we cannot judge Iraq becuase it doesn’t conform. If Saddam was truely terrible then there would be a revolution (they aren’t terribly hard to come by in the last century, they can’t be that difficult) and a new government would be put in it’s place. Why are we so quick to replace other people’s governments? We aren’t the ones that should be doing that, the oppressed themselves have that honor.

I think Emu God answered this fairly well. Saddam has support from his militant loyalist - no doubt about it. When starting a revolution in which the dictator has control of the army (and a powerful one it is) - it’s generally not a good thing. This is especially true when your have many different factions opposing Iraq with no clear guidelines, agenda, or alliance unity. Also, Saddam has a great propaganda campaign at manipulating the people (ex. hatred of the “Great Satan” AKA George Bush and hatred toward Jews) and quickly silencing those who oppose him.