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.

[Quix]

On balance, it's probably more prudent than less prudent.

We don't need any Chamberlins (sp?) in our gov. We had Billdo and Shrillduh far too long--as in 1 second would have been too long.

[Tempest]

Well I have to admire you then for establishing a consistent principal.

[Burkeman1]

Are you saying that Hitler was less worse than Sadaam? Are you saying that for the record? Are you trying to say that Sadaam is worse than Hitler? Indeed! Are you trying to say that Sadaam is worse than the current US backed Algerian regime? That it is worse than Sudan which has killed at a modest estimate half a million black Christians and still practices slavery! What about Turkey which the latest "authorities" say has killed 40,000 kurds in 8 years? Oh don't answer= we look the other way only when we want to justify an oil war (or foggy bottom policy elite war) on the backs of 9/11 dead against a nation that had less to do with it than a man from a nation who ranched with Bush in Texas two weeks ago.

[Burkeman1]

So what you are saying is that every reason for Bush trying to invade Iraq is BS and is part of a larger plan for a takeover of the whole region? And I guess the rest of the Arab world would be "anti american" to say so as well or read it that way?

[x]

I haven't seen any reliable evidence that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. And it seems like inspections, embargos, no fly zones and the rest basically keep Iraq in line. If Saddam attacked or was about to attack another country, if he had nuclear weapons and was going to use them, I'd certainly support war against him, but I don't think President Bush has made the case for war now.

And "preventive war" is a tricky concept. In the right situation it may be a good idea, otherwise it's a recipe for imperial war after war, for making oneself world policeman. This war isn't about 9/11 or Osama bin Laden or even about Saddam Hussein. It's about creating a new international order for the region. And that's a very risky gamble, and the sort of thing we should probably be better off staying out of.

The arguments of the neo-conservative warhawks are very reminiscent of those made by Kennedy's and Johnson's brains trust. There's the same arrogance and overconfidence, and the fear is that things will turn ugly as they did then. Not that we might lose the war itself, but that it will alienate our allies and lead to a century of further wars, revolutions, terrorism and unrest. Clever, cocky, arrogant, war-hungry, self-centered intellectuals pushing us into war against continents, races or religions don't inspire confidence in their policy recommendations.

During the 2000 campaign, lot of people were attracted by GW Bush's "unilateralism" thinking that it meant a disengagement from global organizations and entanglements. Now it looks like more overseas involvements and entanglements, only with diminishing support and cover from our allies.

[Burkeman1]

Sir- when President Bush makes a direct connection on TV between 9/11 and his call for war on Iraq then I will retract every single statement on this thread and many others. I had a co-worker die that day (and we knew it even in Boston by the end of the day). His mother wants justice. But yet I see other agendas in this nations call for Justice. Iraq is not the way of justice. Bush did even mention Osama or 9/11 in his speech before the UN!

[Burkeman1]

So what you are saying is that every Arab nation's propaganda against us is true and they have no reason to support us?

[Burkeman1]

Touche.

[PsyOp]

Are you saying that Hitler was less worse than Sadaam? Are you saying that for the record? Are you trying to say that Sadaam is worsethan Hitler? Indeed!

You need to get a grip on yourself. I used plain concise english as you requested. You are reading things in. I do believe that Saddam is as evil and unbalanced as Hitler. What I was trying to point out to you is that we knew less about Hitler in '39 than we know about Saddam now and most rational people agree that removing Hitler then would have been a positive good.

Saddam has killed hundreds of thousands inside and outside his own borders. Saddam has fired missles at most of his neighbors. Saddam has personally committed murder (Hitler never did that we know of). Saddam funds terrorism, harbors terrorists, and encourages them. He has used chemical weapons against his own people and Iran. In all likely hood he will have nuclear capability in the near future if left alone. What he has already done should have prompted the U.N. to take him out. That he has not yet murdered six million jews (which I am sure he would gladly do if given a chance and a nuke), does not make him less dangerous than Hitler was. Circumstances have so far prevented him from topping Hitler or Stalin - but given time, who knows.

Are you trying to say that Sadaam is worse than the current US backed Algerian regime?

Yes. And they are not trying to obtain WMDs for terrorist uses. That is not to say the Algerians don't have much to answer for. But they're not an immediate threat to the United States. And they're not sending bounty money to palistinians that blow up Jews.

That it is worse than Sudan which has killed at a modest estimate half a million black Christians and still practices slavery!

Yes. And I think the Sudan should be on the eventual target list. Again, though, they are not the immediate threat, and we have to deal with one target at a time. As for the slavery part, tell it to Jesse and Al - they would rather hit us up for reparations than get involved in trying to end slavery in Africa.

What about Turkey which the latest "authorities" say has killed 40,000 kurds in 8 years?

Yes. He is far worse and far more dangerous than the Turks. He's killed far more kurds than they have and in far more gruesome manners.

Oh don't answer=

Oh, I think I will.

we look the other way only when we want to justify an oil war (or foggy bottom policy elite war) on the backs of 9/11 dead against a nation that had less to do with it than a man from a nation who ranched with Bush in Texas two weeks ago. It's not about looking the other way. If we went into each of those countries that you mentioned you'd be having the same fit for the same reasons, and getting your tinfoil panties in just the same bunch.

You seem to forget we fought a war against Saddam. He signed a treaty which he has ignored. Oil or no oil, by international law (which the U.N. seems to be trying hard to ignore), we have the right to go in and make him comply by force. Otherwise, what good is a treaty? He signed it because he wanted to stay in power. He broke the treaty and proved he is still a threat - directly and indirectly. He has to go.

As for oil, that is a non-starter. Because of his destabilizing influence on the region, and his backing of terrorism, he is a threat to our economic security as well. That affects the my future and the future of my children. That threat is no less real than another terrorist strike. It, too, needs to be removed.

And speaking of children, my oldest daughter will be following in her fathers footsteps by leaving for basic training in a few weeks. I just as soon deal with this problem now rather than have it drag on until he has the weapons he needs to make getting rid of him more costly. People like are more likley to get her killed than Bush is.

As for the Saudis and all the rest... If we make an example of Saddam, and make it clear to the world how we will respond to terrorist attacks on the U.S. They may decide to find other ways to amuse themselves. If not, they can suffer the same fate as Saddam.

Your moral equivalency, and keen grasp of reality notwithstanding.

[XBob]

I lived and worked in the mid-east for years, and from 93-95 lived and worked in Cairo, Egypt.

Few outside of the mid-east are aware of

The constant barrage of anti-israeli and anti-American propaganda on the radio, tv, newspapers, and coming from the mosques was just amazing, day after day, week after week, year after year, constant barrages of hate propaganda.

[copycat]

Well, if that is the criteria for military action, Delta Force ought to be breaking down Tom Daschle's office door any second now.

All in good time...

[Pining_4_TX]

Muslims breed like bedbugs

LOL! Now that's a great way to put it.

BTW, since your Dick's ghost, perhaps you can tell us where he is now? :)

[Kermit]

With Iraq, it's going to take an invasion, because Saddam is never going to give up his dream of Arab Empire, which requires WMD in order to succeed. Iran is different, you already have 70+% of the population against the Mullah Regime and I believe the invasion of Iraq will help the Iranians overthrow the Mullahs.

Syria will be surrounded by American power and will be under tremendous pressure to change it's regime and toss out the terrorists there and in Lebanon. If they don't, it'll be relatively easy to change that regime.

The Saudis can be pressured, again if that isn't sufficient, we have additional options.

So, invasion isn't the only option, but that threat sure helps.

[Kermit]

Check out the USS Clueless for the best explanation of the war that I've read.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

So whats your point!

[Brytani]

I see the biggest reasons to remove Saddam is not the potential he has for WMD's or his probable involvement with 9-11 and definite involvement with terrorism, but the fact that the US is made to look weak if we do nothing after 16 violations of UN resolutions and repeated attacks on our military patrolling the no-fly zone.

I am a firm believer the reason Al Quada knew they could attack us on 9-11 was our previous “do nothing” history when it has come to terrorism and terrorists. We don’t have to go far back into our past. We did nothing when Islamic terrorists kidnapped our own citizens and held them for over 300 days. We have done nothing when countries in the Middle East have attempted to hold our country hostage over oil. We have coddled one of the worst terrorists in history, Yassar Arafat, to the detriment of our one and only true ally in the Middle East. I do not need to remind the readers of FR the complete and total lack of response from Clinton over 8 years of attacks on our country and military.

Now we have a new leader in the White House, one who has made the war on terrorism his #1 priority. He has, in no uncertain terms told Palestinians there will be no state, no negotiations for a state until not only Arafat and cronies are removed but when they stop committing acts of terrorism. Bush has commanded a military that has done what Clinton refused to do and Russia never could, a total take over of Afghanistan and ousting of their so-called Government. Bin Laden is most likely dead and Al Quada no longer has a safe haven in Afghanistan. Now the world is faced with Iraq who for the last 4 years has had complete and total ability to produce any sort of weapons they can get their hands on. We know Saddam supports and funds terrorism simply from his 25k payments to families of homicide bombers. When we won the Gulf War, Saddam agreed to many conditions put forth not only by the UN but also by the US. In the years since, we have allowed Saddam to violate every condition without retribution and now it must stop.

Bush cannot stand in front of the world and say, "you are either with us or against us" when we give those who are so clearly against us full immunity. Bush said we would go after those who attacked us and those who protect them and he did. By doing this he showed his determination of going after terrorists who pose a danger to the US. If he now let's Saddam off the hook we go back to where we were before, weak, ineffective and open for further attacks not only in this country but to our allies. Giving Iraq the green light not only gives Saddam permission to do whatever he wants, it gives the likes of Arafat permission to continue waging terrorism on whomever they want.