Why War with Iraq? Or why against?

My Squash ^ | 9/18/2002 | Burkeman1

[Burkeman1]

Why do you think we should go to war against Iraq? Or why are you against such a war?

Take as much space as you need. But post a concise, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or essay and do not link to other sites.

This about why Freepers want war or oppose war.

And no personnal attacks. Everyone on this site is an American and loves this country.

[Burkeman1]

I suggest you read Russian historical authors and not look to fictional Hollywood accounts of the battle of "Stalingrad." That may open your eyes. The Germans were horrific occupiers but over a million Russians served in the end in the German Army. The last defenders of Stalingrad were Russian "HIWI" troops fighting to last against their countrymen. AMong the troops who fought to the last in Berlin (being left by their SS masters) were Vlasov "traitors" who wanted a free Russia. By the way- the Allies returned every Russian in Free Russian uniform to be shot by the trainload once on Communist land? How does that sit with you?

[Tempest]

I read it all the way as it was one of the only essays I have seen posted. But I am not sure where you stand after reading. But you had some good lines. You have a talent for writing to which you should pay attention.

My current stance is, is that I feel it is more important that we continue our current task of neutralizing terrorist factions and to address our domestic issues. Before we involve ourselves in combatting an entire nation that is not currently posing an imminent threat.

I apologize if this does not appear to be a solid answer for you. But I can't prescribe a black or white definition to this subject at the time.

[Mike Darancette]

Why won't Bush sit before the nation and call for war on live TV and present his reasons?

Because I don't believe that Bush is planning for a war in the traditional sense. I don't think that we could be ready for that type of war within 6 months if we cranked up today. It feels like something different is about to happen.

[PsyOp]

The list of charges against Hitler in 1939 was no where near as long as the verifiable list of charges against Saddam and his regime. Yet no one (except Buchananites and Islamists), argue that we should not have acted against Hitler in '39 knowing what we know now.

Just what does Saddam have to do to convince people? Sneak a nuke into a major port and detonate it? Defector from his regime, at the risk of their lives, have told us he is in the final stretch of obtaining his dream of becoming a nuclear power.

The interview with his ex-girlfriend should have convinced anyone watching that the man is a complete whack job. Do you wish to wait until it is proved that he has a functioning nuke to do something?

Bush's desire to take him out has nothing to do with "new world order" or "tri-lateralist" or "bilder-burger" conspiracies. Its simple common-sense.

His father had his hands tied in '91 by the U.N. agreement and our coalition partners. THEY insisted we not finish the job and screamed like stuck pigs when it looked like we were about to do it. The U.N. and Saudi Arabia are to blame for Saddam's survival, not Bush.

He has been rebuilding his inventory of WMDs. Sooner or later he is going to use them. We and/or Isreal are the two most likely targets. That's not a chance I am willing to take.

We takk him out now the cost will be minimal. The longer we wait, the higher the likely cost. He knows it. That is why he is pretending to agree to inspections again.

[Pining_4_TX]

Yup. That's what the thread called for, is it not?

[palmer]

I agree with the 9/11 statement mostly in the way Clinton's military actions were mostly based on making himself more popular, deflecting attention from his personal problems, sucking up to Europe by helping them break up and bomb Yugoslavia, and ignoring everything that didn't help promote his career.

At the same time, I criticize the incoming administration for downplaying terrorism and focussing too much on Iraq.

My biggest criticism is for congress. I was just rereading a hearing in 2000 in which Sen Dodd came out against tracking foreign students effectively. He asked for evidence that supported the claim that a small minority of students would take advantage of us. We saw the evidence a year ago, thanks Senator!

[Burkeman1]

Show me the link between Sadaam and 9/11? Let Bush tell me- alone and on TV - to the nation that he knows they did it- Then I say we go in and destroy them and then rebuild whatever nation is left and teach them to be good Americans and Westerners. But He won't do that! He won't come before the nation - alone- and make the case for war.

[Gorilla44]

What do we do if Saddam (with nukes) wakes up one morning and says "Kuwait is mine! If you try to stop me Israel is glass?" Considering Saddam's risk taking history, I believe this type of future threat is highly probable.

[Burkeman1]

Perhaps the half million Christians in Southern Sudan who have died in the last 15 years would disagree with on the most "evil man" nominee. I would also say the Tutsi of Rwanda would beg to differ. Or even the Cambodians. Sadaam is a less of tyrant than the house of Saud or even Eygpt wich allows the killing of Coptic Christians daily. Iraq has the largest population of Christians in the middle east! Christ= I am sick of arguing.

[Burkeman1]

What do we do if China wakes up tommorrow and says that VietNam and Thialand are theirs?

[D-fendr]

Liberty un-defended is Liberty lost.

[Burkeman1]

Risk taking history? We gave him the green light to take a part of Kuwait- only a part - because the kuwaitiis were doing sideways drilling into his fields. But he went all the way and that we couldn't accept (and were correct not too.) Sadaam is not a "madman".

[Gorilla44]

They probably will if we allow Iraq to cross the line. Welcome to the new brave world.

[Burkeman1]

So the message we send to every dictator on Earth when we invade Iraq is that we only attack you if we think you have nukes. But if you have them then you become a "strategic partner" that we respect and can deal with. So the message sent to the rest of the world is that if you don't have nukes America will invade you and conquer you at any time for whatever reason. But if you do- no matter how sick your regime is- we will respect you.

[Burkeman1]

Why? Is he worse than the house of Saud? How about Sudan? Is he more evil than the Islamic law that rules much of Pakistan? Make no mistake - Sadaam is a brutal Stalinist thug. But his regime has nowhere the level of control that Stalin did.

[Pining_4_TX]

Arabs have consistently held the threat of cutting off the supply of oil to the US in order to influence US policy on sundry matters including US support of Israel.

You have made my point. It is Israel that is driving our Middle East policies and it always has been. As for the oil, what are they going to do with it if they don't sell it, eat it? And the Arab nations do not have the monopoly on oil that they once had. Perhaps we should concentrate on drilling in Alaska and other measures to reduce our dependence on Arab oil.

The rest of your post sounded as if you are prepared to invade and conquer the entire Middle East. Why don't we just take over the whole damn world and attempt to remake it? Do you honestly think that will work? Or is it better to look after our own interests at home? We have failed to follow George Washington's wise advice not to become entangled in the affairs of other countries. The Middle East conflict should never have become our fight.