Important Questions About War in Iraq

Any coherent answers to these questions?

Thanks. I clicked "post" too quickly.

A Ron Paul bump. I don't think the neocons want to address these questions in advance, let's just play it by ear.

One more question:

Where has Ron Paul been all this time? Those of us on the Right have been debating the Iraq question for the past 3 or 4 months.

A Ron Paul dump.

These "questions" )aka liberal left talking points) have been answered over and over ad nauseum.

The amazing thing is Paul's double standards and hypocrisy.

All of a sudden scum bags like Scowcroft are brilliant.

Hah!!!

When has Paul ever said that before. Paul has always been diametricallt opposed to the views of Scowcroft's and Powells and those he cites.

Appeasers never met a brutal dictator they did not genuflect to.

Attacking the messenger is not answering the questions, it's just a standard method to avoid doing so.

Check out the Attack on Iraq Betting Pool

The pool is still open and predictions are still being accepted!

People on the right I respect have been questioning this action in Iraq. Several of them have been warning this is going to be very messy. So it is necessary we be united going in. We do need to do this; but I don't think people realize this will be harder than desert storm or Afghanistan.

Also, several people have been talking about Iran more than Iraq. From everything I have been reading on FR lately, it seems like Iran is about to explode. Perhaps Iran should be our focus first.

Where has Ron Paul been all this time? Those of us on the Right have been debating the Iraq question for the past 3 or 4 months.

Rep. Paul has written and spoken on this topic consistently for at least the past year, and has written on Iraq and US policy since the first Gulf War. You can access his other statements on his website.

I'm not sure this will be harder than Afghanistan which has a long history of resisting occupations. I would expect a guerrilla war there, not Iraq. Also Iraq has never recovered from their 1991 defeat, their fighter planes are still in Iran for "safe keeping" and their air defenses have been pounded regularly.

We shouldn't confuse the issue by scare-mongering and other red herrings. There are real risks to war such as touching off a wider MidEast war. Israel will need to be actively restrained as they were in 1991 in order to prevent Arab retaliation. There will be much larger Arab street protests which could spiral out of control. There are other unpredictable possibilities, but I wouldn't question our ability to take Iraq quickly and easily.

The real price of war with Iraq will be in the long term as it will inspire new terrorism. Terrorists will be deterred if they think that they will be targetted (e.g. by special ops). On the other hand, if they see us lash out with conventional warfare they will be inspired and emboldened.

I truly believe we need to let the mission define the coalition and not the coalition the mission. When the coalition defines the mission, you get a watering down of objectives... and compromises where there should be none.
The President needs to prove to those who say there is no proof that Iraq has this or that, or even if he did, he wouldn't use them... that Islamic Terrorism doesn't happen in a vacuum. That Bin Laden isn't suspended in mid-air. That states sponsor terrorism... Iran and Iraq have been on the front edge of terror for a long time - providing funds, weapons, and political cover. And if the states begin to fall, then the scaffolding that holds up the Islamic militants will begin to disintegrate.

Bin Laden is counting on the fact that Americans are too soft to summon the will to fight this war. The media and "opinion" makers who seemed to be afraid to go to war because well... what if this happened... need to understand that 9/11 wasn't the climax of anything. It was the beginning.

Bin Laden and the 19 hi-jackers were not afraid to launch airplanes into two crowded office buildings and the Pentagon. If they had nuclear weapons, do you think they would not use them. And which country would provide them that technology because even though their goals are different their means are the same. Iraq and Iran. If after Iraq falls, Iran doesn't stand down by dismantling Hizbollah, then Iran will have to be next.

This war will cost us lives... but this war has to be fought and won as surely as some of the bloodiest battles in World War II needed to fought and won.

As long as one part stands...the war cannot be over. We need to understand that this terror apparatus transcends borders. Borders are the West's imposition on the Arabs.

For those who say we can't go because we don't know what to do when it is over... I say thank goodness that didn't stop us from fighting Nazism. Good thing we didn't say, "well, we can't fight Hitler until we know what we will do with Germany when it is over."

Defeat the terror regime first... everything else is secondary.

I like Ron Paul, but in this essay, I got to the third paragraph and I find that Rep. Paul's argument incredulous.

Is Iraq a real danger to us, or have the war hawks wildly exaggerated the threat posed by this impoverished third-world nation?

OK, Iraq is not as developed as your average OECD country, but Iraq is also not at the same level as real third world countries like Bangladesh, Somalia, or Chad (or any other of the impoverished African nations). Iraq is impoverished because they have been under a UN embargo for over a decade. The people of Iraq are impoverished by the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

The point is, I think Ron Paul is underestimating the resources and capabilities of Iraq. Think about it, in the 1980s they were building a nuclear reactor. This is not the sort of effort undertaken by an impoverished third world nation. The Iraqis have both natural resources (oil) and human resources (science), and the largest military in the ME. It does not make sense to place Iraq in the category of third world countries that generally are too impovershed and hence incapable of posing threats to their neighbors and fomenting regional political instability.

OK, Iraq is not as developed as your average OECD country, but Iraq is also not at the same level as real third world countries like Bangladesh, Somalia, or Chad (or any other of the impoverished African nations). Iraq is impoverished because they have been under a UN embargo for over a decade. The people of Iraq are impoverished by the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

OK, but you said it yourself: whatever the reason, Iraq at present is impoverished, hence "third world". I don't think the description is inaccurate or inappropriate. Surely there are degrees of "third-worldness".

I'll take a shot at answering them.....IMHO..

Why do so many knowledgeable military experts, including former generals Anthony Zinni, Brent Scowcroft, Norman Schwarzkopf, and Colin Powell, caution against war in Iraq? These men understand the geopolitics and military realities of Iraq and the Middle East from their service during the first Bush administration. Are the brilliant military minds of a decade ago suddenly irrelevant? Note that those who actually have experienced war are the most reluctant to call for war, in stark contrast to the mostly non-veteran pundits clamoring to "take Saddam out."
These Pundits have ceased to be soldiers (Except Scrowcroft)and have become diplomats. I want a general who will ask if all other strategies have been exhausted or rendered out of the equation. As for Scrowcroft his advice to G.B. Sr. was exactly the same as now, He advised that we would have 50,000 casualties, I would say that alone renders his assessment moot.

Is Iraq a real danger to us, or have the war hawks wildly exaggerated the threat posed by this impoverished third-world nation?
Saddam has been funding and training terrorist for some time. If you don’t know that , then you have had your head in the sand for a long time. Sooner or later he will use whatever weapon he deems the most destructive on us. Will he or his identifiable thugs do it ? No, he will use some obscure group that will have all ties to Iraq laundered completely. Pick a city your willing to sacrifice and tell them that your willing to see the death of thousands of them and the destruction of their homes and businesses. O yes, About the delivery system....It won’t be a ICBM, Or A Large Bomber, It will be a shipping container, or a crate, or a suitcase, or a.....get the drift ?

Do you personally feel strongly enough about Iraq to leave your home, family, and job to join the war? If you are beyond the age of military service, would you want your children or grandchildren to do the same? After Pearl Harbor, almost all Americans would have answered yes to this question, but do we really have the same national unity and clear sense of purpose when it comes to Iraq?
I am well beyond the age to serve, but I have in the past. I have seen many good men get splattered in some God forsaken jungle, or incinerated in a burning aircract. I flew with them, I was one of the lucky ones, I survived. I have been the tip of the spear for a President and his SOD, who had no intention of winning a war. We have a President who will see it out to the finish. As for my children?.... Well I have a son at The Citadel, need I say more ? As for the people of the United States.... We’re pissed..... I heard the audible collective groan on 9/11.. and the demand to nuke the bastards...Yeah we’re ready

.What would you give up at home to provide the billions of dollars necessary to prosecute the war? Would you support a huge tax increase, or give up your Social Security benefits for a decade? I know many Americans would be happy to sacrifice, but we should be honest about what this war might cost us and judge whether it’s worth it.
All I can say here is , I have already lost my social security on 9/11.. not the financial one, I wasn’t gonna see that anyway. As for a tax increase to pay for it.... Hell. to the victors belong the spoils, sell their oil and recoup that way, It won’t take long.

Everyone wants a regime change in Iraq, but who exactly will replace Hussein? Will we support a handpicked successor who later turns on us, much like bin Laden did after we funded his resistance to Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? Remember that the Kurds, our supposed friends in northern Iraq, have fundamentalist factions that are aligned with bin Laden and are allegedly hiding al Qaeda. We risk replacing the secular Hussein regime with a more fundamentalist Kurd regime that hates western values.
Who cares ?.. Did we respond to Pearl Harbor thinking what government would exist in Germany or Japan? NO we just got on with the job, we took what we had to and we kicked butt , when they had enough they got thier act stright. The Muz will learn this too, if we punish ‘em enough.

How long will we be in Iraq after Saddam Hussein is ousted? Will we be nation-building for decades, as we almost certainly will be in Afghanistan? We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes made in Korea and Vietnam by entering another conflict without clear objectives and a definite exit strategy.
The objective is to gouge out the islamic mongrels, replace them with a civilized government that allows frredom of choice and open elections, I know that is a bit of a streach of a arab country .....but ya never know until you try.

Does an invasion of Iraq play into bin Laden’s hands by turning the entire Islamic world against us? Will an Iraq war expand into a Middle East war against Israel? Will Islamic terrorists mount attacks in America and around the world to protest the war?
The Mus will attack us if we DON’T DO ANYTHING, They already hate us. As fort Israel... well it’s time Israel got a chance to sweep the table clear of the cancer which is the PLO, HAMAS, ETC, ETC.

If we are justified in attacking Iraq, what about the dozens of other countries that pose much more of a threat to us? Why aren’t the war hawks calling for an invasion of Iran or especially Saudi Arabia, which harbored most of the September 11th terrorists?
To each in their own time

With American forces stretched thin in the Middle East and the administration preoccupied, will China take the opportunity to invade Taiwan? Will India and Pakistan engage in a full-fledged war? Will adversaries like Russia consider us weakened and move against us?
China will mind it’s manners. China knows that we are conducting operations that may look tempting but they also know that with our assets spread thin we may only have the Nuke option to deal with them. At least they need to think that ! Russia will be too busy making money from new found western markets for their oil.

Finally, do the American people, and not just a handful of advisors to the President, really want this war?
I belive the polls show 50% + do, the rest will follow if the cause is right.

ROBE

"Do you personally feel strongly enough about Iraq to leave your home, family, and job to join the war? If you are beyond the age of military service, would you want your children or grandchildren to do the same? After Pearl Harbor, almost all Americans would have answered yes to this question, but do we really have the same national unity and clear sense of purpose when it comes to Iraq?"

Wrong question. One year after the outrage of 9/11 and what have we done? What sacrifices have we made? Our politicians don't want to do anything that would inconvenience your average citizen. It's not as if we were at war for our very existence and our lives. (Just as certainly as we were after Pearl Harbor, if not more so.)

We are at war with Islam. Not a particular nation. We have done almost nothing since 9/11/2001 except wring our hands and spout platitudes.

We may as well acknowledge the fact that we are at war and methodically destroy them all. That's what it will take.

I seriously believe we should simply nuke all of the capitals of terror-supporting states. Same day. Maybe 9/11/2002 would be a good date.

That would be a start on what we need to do.

Yes, Bush should have gotten a formal declaration of war against Islam. I suppose he could still request one...but he probably would not get it, whereas on 9/12/2001 he would have. A day that will live in infamy? There are no words in the English language to express the enormity.

But we go on pretending that "overthrowing" Saddam will finish it.

--Boris

Saddam has been funding and training terrorist for some time. If you don’t know that , then you have had your head in the sand for a long time.

Evidence? The CIA has stated that Iraq has not sponsored terrorism for the past ten years.

I belive the polls show 50% + do, the rest will follow if the cause is right.

Barely 50 percent support this, and that number has fallen continuously from last year. That is hardly convincing and hardly overwhelming.

As to your service and that of your son, I respect that you have put your money where your mouth is. That's a damn sight better than most who are yelling for war. I may disagree with your opinion, but I do it honestly and without disrespect.

The evidence is in the statements of defectors which state that ..
1. Iraq has been training elements of Ben Laden group in the use of Chemical/bio weapons.
2. Training in the operational aspects of highjacking on a base south of Bagdad ( I forget the Name).
As for the CIA’s assessment.. I wouldn’t put much in it. Our human intel assets were gutted in the past administration, if we ever had much at all.
I also submit that the payment of $25,000 to the families of homicide bombers constitutes the support of terrorism ( At least it’s good enough for me).
Thanks for the “stroke “ about me and my son.
Not a day goes by that I don’t reflect his possible prospects. I believe he has a better chance of survival if he is trained well and his instincts honed sharp.
Keep him in your prayers.

The bas ein question is Salman Pak.