Do you support an attack on Iraq?

Clintons Cat

Broadly yes,i do support a regime change in Iraq,preferably without resort to conflict,however the last decade has proven how berefet of ideas or decisive strategy the international communityin particular US and UK has been in its desire for regime change.Maybe a conflict is necessary as a catalyst for change.

However many older more experienced US advisers including Norman Swartzkoff have erred on the side of caution when considering an all out attack on Iraq,many do not beleive that the reletive ease with which The Taliban were ousted could be repeated.Any attack on Iraq would be a lengthy drawn out affair both costly in terms of resourses and human lives.

Firstly Unlike Afganistan the indigineous resistance movement is much more fractious,the Northern Alliance had at least formed a semblence of organised command and control under the leadership of the late Gen Massoud,which was partally bonded by age old tribal loyalties and the cultural concept of regional autonomy and a unifying shared religion,thus local warlords could be encouraged to join a popular uprising without fear of losing status even in Pashtun areas simply by running up a new flag and desposing of a few hundred taliban officers who in many cases were outsiders and hated arab foriegners.
In Iraq the Kurdish opposition is fragmented the Kurds are split into three main opposition groups, The Patriotic Union Of Kurdistan,The Kurdish Democratic Party,And Ansar Al Islam which frequently collude with Sadamns regime against each other.
In the south the main opposition comes from the Shia Muslim Minority whereas the majority of the population are Sunni Muslim,
who are mistrustful of being dominated by a minority who have been ruthlessly treated even by sadamns standards.

Secondly in the event of an attack,which the US principle regional allies saudi arabia,jordan have voiced their opposition to the proposal and fear greater instability and insurection within their own countries as a result.
It is certain that Sadamn will attempt some kind of strike on israel,it would be unlikely the israelis would be willing to not retalliate as they did during the Gulf war,at that point the majority of Arab opinion was against sadam and the regional arab states had a tighter control on their populations.
The propaganda potential of a joint American/Israeli attack on iraq for Anti Western groups such as Al Quedia would be imense.

DadaKopf

I found a coule of articles online some of you might like reading:

An Interim Assessment of September 11: What Has Changed and What Has Not? and CIA’s Strategic Intelligence in Iraq

And this: After the Storm: U.S. Policy Toward Iraq Since 1991, which is excellent.

Turnip

Originally posted by Sand
No, its one of Vons many, unfunny, pathetic attempts at satire - You see, youre meant to assume that supporting the overthrow of Saddam makes you a right wing nazi - that or english, its hard to tell with Vons take on right wing nazism.

Von is suggesting that his cousin was not happy with what he had to do during the war. Perhaps someone should have told him that joining the army might mean that he’d have to, y’know, kill people and do nasty stuff. He probably wasn’t rocket scientist material (would I be right in saying he joined the army because he wasn’t bright enough to get a normal job or start a business?) but surely he might have been able to grasp this simple fact.
And Sand, people have very valid reasons for being opposed to the war. To label them as yellow bellied fascist appeasing communists or whatever is just stupid and and lazy and boring and wrong. I happen to think the risks attached to the war outweigh the dangers of allowing Saddam to continue in power. Von has a point when he says people who want war should go fight it if at all possible. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a kind of international legion was formed that would allow civilians to volunteer and fight against repressive regimes. I’d consider it since I’m in the FCA (no laughing please) and if my very modest skills were needed for a cause I support then I’d be morally obliged to ‘f**k off and join up’.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Turnip

It would be interesting to see what would happen if a kind of international legion was formed that would allow civilians to volunteer and fight against repressive regimes.

Sounds like fun. Where do i go to reserve myself a spot from july -> september 2003? Is there any info at this point in time of who I will be fighting against?

Shazbat

Originally posted by Turnip

It would be interesting to see what would happen if a kind of international legion was formed that would allow civilians to volunteer and fight against repressive regimes

Would that not be the French foreign legion?

You should join that it would be interesting for you to see how far your FCA skills get you.

BJJ

American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush ....

Who gave Saddam all his Tanks and Bombs and weapons of Mass destruction?

U.S. Chemical and Biological Exports to Iraq and Their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War


Committee Staff Report No. 3: Chemical Warfare Agent Identification, Chemical Injuries, and Other Findings.
U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

James J Tuite, III, Principal Investigator......

On October 27, 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs held hearings that revealed that the United States had exported chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile-system equipment to Iraq that was converted to military use in Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons program. Many of these weapons -- weapons that the U.S. and other countries provided critical materials for -- were used against us during the war......
.....
....

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by bonkey


Does this mean that you have ****ed off and joined up???

jc

A very valid point- if I were to support a liberal judiciary Von, would I have to train as a judge first? Of course not, that would be absurd. To quote Arrigo Sacchi- "I don't have to have been a horse in order to learn how to be a jockey". If military action does happen to go ahead, I won't be cheering- merely hoping we do a better job than we did last time in removing Sadaam. No one questions that this is everyone's goal- but how we go about achieving and implementing it could shape the region for decades to come. This has a lot more serious repercussions than any involvement of ours in Afghanistan- its unilateral manner and seemingly baseless threat assessment augers ill for the results of the operation.

Occy

dathi1

hoping we do a better job than we did last time

tee heee hee its not like lord of the rings bobo..you'll have to actually kill a lot of Iraqis to remove one man and his regime...and you'll see them dump the Kurds again above the 42nd parallel to avoid upsetting the Turks with an independent oil rich Kurdistan.
remember Somalia...they done a good job there too.

Turnip

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
A very valid point- if I were to support a liberal judiciary Von, would I have to train as a judge first? Of course not, that would be absurd. To quote Arrigo Sacchi- "I don't have to have been a horse in order to learn how to be a jockey".

Occy

LOL Occy. Well put. But perhaps, just as one need not be trained as a judge to sit on a jury, not every soldier needs to be a Sandhurst educated general. However, Saddam is IMO the greatest threat to the stability of the west since Hitler. Although he is an evil dictator, I wouldn't go so as far as others have done and say he IS the new Hitler but we cannot afford to leave it to chance to find out. How many people in hindsight wished they could have done more to stop the Nazis when they had the chance but they didn't, because they just hoped things would work out for the best in the end. The world had to live with the consequences of that inaction and crazy optimism. Perhaps intervention at some stage between 1933 and 1939 would have been futile, who can say? But is it really morally acceptable for us to send off American and British troops (many of whom join the army for economic rather than ideological reasons) into battle and expect the ultimate sacrifice from them, while we sit at home watching television or playing computer games? If some of the more pessimistic predictions turn out to be correct, our troops could end up fighting urban warfare and taking high casualties. How will those of us who supported the invasion react to that eventuality? I shudder to think. So Von's point, however poorly articulated via tedious attempts at irony, has a smidgin of merit I'm sorry to say.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
Although he is an evil dictator, I wouldn't go so as far as others have done and say he IS the new Hitler but we cannot afford to leave it to chance to find out.

While I mostly agree, I'd ask where we will draw the line. If and when the west depose Saddam as being the greatest threat, who's next? When does it all stop?

To be honest, calling Saddam the largest threat to the west since Hitler is probably an exaggeration. Communism was arguably a much bigger threat. I mean - unless Saddam gets (or has) his WMDs and somehow manages to use them against the west, he's no threat at all. Yes, this is the basic reasoning behind taking him out, but what about all those other nations who already are known to have WMDs who arent on Dubya's Christmas list?

But is it really morally acceptable for us to send off American and British troops (many of whom join the army for economic rather than ideological reasons) into battle and expect the ultimate sacrifice from them, while we sit at home watching television or playing computer games?

These people joined the army voluntarily. Their chosen profession involves putting their life on the line as and when dictated by their leaders. Their job is to keep their nation safe.

If a country decides that it needs to send soldiers into Iraq in order to keep itself safe, then there is no immorality or amorality in sending in the troops. These are the men and women who have already, by their choice, stated that they will die for their country if needed.

While their lives should never be squandered, their choices should be respected, and their sacrifices honoured, I will feel no guilt sitting here in front of a pc while soldiers are out there doing "their job". They chose it. I chose something else.

jc

Lemming

Originally posted by Turnip

However, Saddam is IMO the greatest threat to the stability of the west since Hitler

I would go far as to say that whilst Saddam is, in fact, a threat - albeit a rather marginalised one, Bush is far more dangerous to the stability of the west.

He's barking left right and centre with a VERY hawk-ish administration behind him. I remember reading a comment somewhere where even some of Bush's generals are starting to get nervous and uncomfortable. The comment was something like this

"When politicians (rummesfeld et al.) are eager for war, you have to stop and think".

And IF he goes into Iraq pre-emtive, he's playing RIGHT into Al Queada hands for their propoganda.

Look even at the Holly and Jessica muders. Some right-wing muslim groups who celebrated Sept.11 on their websites have used these murders to say that UK law is too soft and harbours Paedophiles and that this is the "MIGHTY" west in all its glory, etc, etc.

BEAT

I hav'nt read all the replies because I just dont have the time, but to answer the original question...in my personal opinion I feel bush is just doing this because his father suggested it. I feel the only way this attack should take place , is if they plan to just wipe iraq out. Drop the bomb, get it over with. Wipe out iraq and afghanistan, hell, wipe out pakistan too while they are at it.
*sense my sarcasm.
America feels the need to put everyone in thier place, sometimes I think America needs to keep out of things. If the usa didnt interfere so much perhaps all these countries wouldnt hate them so much and want to wage war against them, I am just sick of America's politics and "the bush family' in general. Voting bush jr. into office was just another way of America saying, yep, we're stupid and though his father screwed up and got us into a war, we think jr. will get us in a bigger war and we might all die! we just love to be involved in war's in other countries, sending troops over to kill and be killed..it's what we do, we are proud to be Americans and this is how we show it.
Sorry, a bit cynical today, in a sarcastic sort of mood, and always in a "hate" Bush mood. So, I voted no, because we'd be over there for all the wrong reasons, as far as Bush is concerned.
I think it's more personal for him than political.

Bard

here we go again :rolleyes:

Venom

Bush is going to take out Saddam no matter what the rest of the world thinks. Any evidence stating that Iraq is not a WMD treat has been ignored by both the Brits and US as the US just wants to kick ass to take the focus away from how bad things are in the States with their economy. Such tatics always distract the American people who need now more that ever to belive their number one.

I just wonder who the US will set up as the next boogieman after Saddam is taking care of.

LizardKing

I don't think they should attack Iraq - what have Iraq done , nothing , wheres the proof that they are stockpiling weapons of mass destruction - I mean what the F*** are the US stock piling in the Deserts near Los Alamos. As said before I'm sure its Bush tryin to hoodwink the US into him gettin another four years in office.

Saddam may be a tyrant etc. but they should be able to sort the Weapons Inspections out before mass bombings and ground attacks.

I am anti-war especially the US way of war which is basically bomb the **** outta everything and then send in the cleaners

Bush = Evil

PHB

Bunkum. I would call Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait staunch US allies, especially Egypt and Jordan

Egpyt are anything but happy allies, they have a national hatred for Isreal after they got their asses kiced in the last war, and hence hold that hatred to america for supporting them.

Even though they aren't going to suddenly break away from being happy campers with america because America is attacking Iraq

PHB

Also I would say Bush, and his administration, is the biggest threat to the stability of the west since Hitler.

Brian Bennette

I don't think the UsA/UK should just bomb Iraq straight away, they need some evidence first.

Saddam is a threat to world peace.

If the UN Report shows that Saddam has BioWeapons or Nukes then he must be stopped.

Biffa Bacon

Do you know what the best thing about this war is going to be? When the Iraqi regime crumbles in a number of weeks with limited civilian and American casualties and the ordinary citizens of Iraq come out on to streets rejoicing, laughing and singing?

Watching the lefties squirm as they try to explain how they got yet another war wrong.

Lemming

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Do you know what the best thing about this war is going to be? When the Iraqi regime crumbles in a number of weeks with limited civilian and American casualties and the ordinary citizens of Iraq come out on to streets rejoicing, laughing and singing?

Watching the lefties squirm as they try to explain how they got yet another war wrong.

Whilst we can all be under no illusions as to the type of "leader" Hussein is ...

I will tell you one thing that is GUARUANTEED to be an outcome of this little debacle:

Al Queada recruitment throughout the middle east is going to skyrocket. And if you thought they got the bulk of Al Queada's forces in Afghanistan, you wont have seen anything yet......

How many arabs live in the west? Even if you look across at the UK, there has been an upsurge in anti-western groups and propoganda amonst these people.

And you want to start a war over VERY shakey reasoning??

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Do you know what the best thing about this war is going to be? When the Iraqi regime crumbles in a number of weeks with limited civilian and American casualties and the ordinary citizens of Iraq come out on to streets rejoicing, laughing and singing?

Watching the lefties squirm as they try to explain how they got yet another war wrong.

Is this going to be the same as the "limited" civilian casualties there was in Afghanistan?

Turnip

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Do you know what the best thing about this war is going to be? When the Iraqi regime crumbles in a number of weeks with limited civilian and American casualties and the ordinary citizens of Iraq come out on to streets rejoicing, laughing and singing?

The americans have a quite a bit of work to do to show that they're not just going in to colonise Iraq. Iraqis may not fight for Saddam but they might fight for their country's independence.

Watching the lefties squirm as they try to explain how they got yet another war wrong.

That will be funny yes.

Blade

Originally posted by PHB


Egpyt are anything but happy allies, they have a national hatred for Isreal after they got their asses kiced in the last war, and hence hold that hatred to america for supporting them.

America gives Egypt foreign aid of around 2 billion dollars a year which is around two thirds of what it gives Israel. I think they have em pretty much bought.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Do you know what the best thing about this war is going to be?
...
Watching the lefties squirm as they try to explain how they got yet another war wrong.

And this would be "another" war because they were wrong about the war in Afghanistan?

Wrong in what way? Most people doubted it would be a quick and easy job, and that troops would be tied up in there for years. Last time I checked, the troops were still in there, the interim government had SFA control over most of the country, and the media had shut up about it so the public would conveniently forget about it.

In short - the claims of a quick, cheap clean war in Afghanistan (made both before and after the main incursions) were horse - because it hasnt been quick - its still ongoing. Therefore, the cost is impossible to determine, both fiscally and in terms of lives. Oh - and not to mention that the media conveniently only report American casualties when it comes to the cost in lives....cause those local allies dont matter really.

Which other wars did the lefties get "wrong" that makes you think Iraq will be "another" one?

Or - put a different way - do you honestly believe the righties have managed to predict outcomes any better?

jc

Turnip

What did people make of Bush's speech to the UN? I thought it was pretty convincing. I don't understand why there's so much opposition to getting the UN to enforce its own resolutions. At the end of the day, if they're not backed up with military force they're not worth the paper they're written on.

PHB

You see thats the thing about the UN,
In my opinion it shouldn't be backed up with military force until the veto is removed, if military force is used before then then the 5 veto countries have undemocratic control.