Attack on Iraq

Paulg

In the next few weeks when Bush gives the order for American troops to begin the attack on Iraq. It will be the beginning of a war that will have many more casualties than on September 11th. And most of them will be innocent iraqi people.

To oust Saddam, the US will have to enter citys, they cannot do this with just troops. Large militery vehicles will be patrolling the streets of many iraqi citys, just like what we have seeing in Israel.

The US thinks it has the right to do what it likes. While the rest of the world will sit back and let them. Its an outrage that no countries support the US, but they will do nothing to stop them... They think its enough not to give them there support.

Its either right for the US to attack (then european governments should support the US) or wrong for them to attach (they should oppose it).

dathi1

I've a funny feeling that theirs more to this Iraqi invasion than meets the eye. I cant see Blair jumping on the bandwagon (which he is) for no reason. Unlike Bush he is an intelligent person. Could it be that there's some sort of military intelligence communication with the Iraqi Generals and establishment to enable a walk in invasion? Much to their detriment they have shown their disloyalty to Hussein in the past. Perhaps it might be a partial invasion followed by a bloodless coup with Hussein doing a runner to Syria or being killed. The November congressional elections would then be a walkover for Bush. Only speculating.

Now ... what about the liberation of Palestine? reef?

Batfink

No doubt about it ,regardless of what the United nations think there will be an attack on Iraq in the next few months. This time around though they won't make the mistake of leaving Saddem in office.Last time they thought Iraq was to unstable of a country to hold itself together after the fall of Saddem, they thought it would lead to unrest within Iraq and possible lead to an all out war in the middle east. They thought it would be safer just to leave him power. This time around Bush Jnr is looking to erase the mistakes of his farther by destroying Saddem for once and for all. You also have to take into account that they just gave them another 10 years to help try create nuclear weapons which they probably already have and that is why there is an all out offensive on them now. You can be garanteed that just before they attack they will release all the dossiers they have giving whatever reasons wheather they are true or not ??

I don't believe in war but sometimes you have no other options. Who would want another Hitler out there ?? Just in the case of America they are not always right and just like to think they are .

JustHalf

According to reports on Spin 103.8 news (haven't been able to verify these yet), the war has already begun, with Special Forces taking a palace in Northern Iraq for possible use as a command post.

Typedef

I have to say I think Saddam should be removed from power.

What I can't and won't condone is the United States acting unilaterally without the consent of the UN to do so would negate any legitimate claim for military action against the Iraqi regieme.

The USA has often touted itself as 'not being the policemen of the world', therefore it shouldn't act like judge,jury and executioner.

With some political jiggery pokery an alliance of sorts can be built, and a UN mandate fabricated, this is the very least that needs to happen.

Whats more, if fighting is enivitable, then what should happen is Saddam Hussein should simply be asassinated, what I will not condone nor support is still more suffering heaped upon the Iraqi civilian population for what is lets face it, ostensiblly a war about oil.

True in this instance the Dictator in question Saddam Hussein, has used chemical weapons against civilians within his own country and for that should have been removed from power long ago, however that does not give the USA endemnification nor credo to abrogate the legitimacy of the UN.

The USA cannot accuse Saddam Hussein of flouting the UN, and flout the UN by acting unilaterally against Saddam Hussein, not if it wants to derive any support for it's actions nor be in a position where the USA should face sanctions for flouting the UN.

With a little machiavellianism of which Tony Blair is most assuredly capable of mustering and just a little curtiousy paid to established process military action against Saddam Hussein and Saddam Hussein alone can take place.

Elsewise I personally can not and will not support any action against Iraq. On a real level I don't think I can support action that may result in Iraqi civilian deaths either, what have the Iraqi people done to deserve that?

Exactly, nothing.

Typedef.

bonkey

Originally posted by Paulg
To oust Saddam, the US will have to enter citys, they cannot do this with just troops. Large militery vehicles will be patrolling the streets of many iraqi citys, just like what we have seeing in Israel.

Well, in fairness, many opponents of the Afghan excursion said the exact thing about getting rid of the Taliban.

While I recognise that the US had many friendly troops on the ground, the simple fact is that there was never any serious urban warfare, and the Taliban were still ousted.

jc

Cork

Saddam Hussein, has used chemical weapons against civilians within his own country and for that should have been removed from power long ago, however that does not give the USA endemnification nor credo to abrogate the legitimacy of the UN.

The UN is a talking shop. Look at its members. Look at all the tin pot dictators. We don't need chemical weapons or nuclear weapons getting into the hands of Loonies.

What solution has the UN purposed?

Com'on - we don't need more September 11ths.

We are in a Western society. The loonly left European governments and the EU are disgraceful. What solution are they coming up with?

cartman

well ask yourselfs this question , is George Bush doing this for the public human rights? or.. which i think is correct hes doin his father unfinished business which happened some 10year ago..
we know all bush is is a killer. those iraqis are innocent and bush is gonna wipe them out..
the never caused a treat to anyone in the last 4years until bush stepped in..hes pushin them to attack so he can kill every1 there..
just have a thought and think why is he killin every1 in iraq when he knows he started it all off..

shotamoose

Originally posted by Cork


The UN is a talking shop. Look at its members. Look at all the tin pot dictators. We don't need chemical weapons or nuclear weapons getting into the hands of Loonies.

What solution has the UN purposed?

Com'on - we don't need more September 11ths.

We are in a Western society. The loonly left European governments and the EU are disgraceful. What solution are they coming up with?

We can't completely stop chemical or nuclear weapons getting into the hands of Loonies, whether it's Saddam we're talking about or Bush, Sharon or Musharraf. But it is possible to deter that regime from using them with the threat of a disproportionate and comprehensive response. This is what has prevented nuclear war so far, and the one thing that threatens to break that record is a pre-emptive attack on anyone who possesses such weapons.

The UN certainly is a talking shop, but the world needs a talking shop. One of the reasons the UN is unable to enforce security council resolutions is because the US refuses to let it except when it suits the US's own interests. This shouldn't be all that surprising, but people still seem to think that Bush is genuinely interested in getting the UN's approval for an invasion of Iraq. I don't think he is - I'd say it's more likely that he wants the UN to make demands that he knows Iraq will not meet, at which point the UN will not mandate a military invasion of Iraq, at which point Bush will be able to declare the UN useless and go invade Iraq anyway. Even if the UN does mandate force he can invade Iraq and claim the support of the world. But if they don't he gets the added bonus of dimisssing the UN as having any sort of global authority.

dathi1

Problem is:

If Hussein is removed from power we end up with a fractured coalition coming in. Now the Kurds will want more than the limited autonomy that they were given under Hussein. Turkey will have none of it and will extend its buffer zone down to the 42 parallel. The United states will plicate there Nato partner as they don't want dodgy Kurdish groups controlling the oilfields in that region.
The marsh Arabs in the south who are shia will align themselves with their Iranian backed militias. Unless they can pull off another Uncle Sam puppet like Karzai they'll have a lot of clearing up to do.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Cork

Saddam can sell all the oil he wants for food. Yet, his people are suffering. What has the UN done? What has our own Mary Robinson achieved? It has been 12 years since trhe Gulf War. Something has to be done. The EU are a disgrace. Where do they stand? No wonder Britian & the US go it alone.

Turnip

Originally posted by Cork
We are in a Western society. The loonly left European governments and the EU are disgraceful. What solution are they coming up with?

What looney left governments? Spain, Italy, and France all have conservative governments. New Labour is practically indistinguishable from the Tories and our own government is right of centre. Only Germany to go and socialism is finished in Europe. Toodle oo! No European government is as right wing as America's but I don't think that would be entirely desirable given their rubbish health and education systems and huge prison population.

Cork

We are in a Western society. The loonly left European governments and the EU are disgraceful. What solution are they coming up with?

What solution are the EU coming up with? What is their view? Where is prodi? The EU are a disgrace.

given their rubbish health and education systems and huge prison population.

How does Saddam treat his prisoners? Does Saddam have a good Education system?

What has the UN done since the Gulf war wit iraq? What has our own Mary Robinson achieeved? We need to ensure nuclear and chemical weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

We don't need more September 11ths. If Saddam does not leave inspectors in - What would you do?

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
We need to ensure nuclear and chemical weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

Are there any "right" hands for these weapons to fall into?

Who gets to decide the rights to these weapons, and presumably any new types of WMDs? The people with the most guns? Why?

Dont get me wrong. I believe Saddam Hussein is, for lack of a better term, a "Clear and Present Danger". This may be justifiable cause for the horrific consequences of war - it may be the lesser of two evils. It may also prove to be completely unjustified, or the final cost may be far higher than we deem reasonable - time will tell. We all have our concerns, some more than others.

This, however, should not be justified on any sort of "generic" basis. It should not become an excuse to allow the US and its Allies to militarily force the remainder of the world into the shape it desires. Giving it any form of generic validity like "the wrong hands" asks more questions then it answers.

jc

Cork

It should not become an excuse to allow the US and its Allies to militarily force the remainder of the world into the shape it desires. Giving it any form of generic validity like "the wrong hands" asks more questions then it answers.

They may go into iraq if Saddam defies the UN resolutions.

Saddam has used such weapons on his own people. They are many states in the world that need to be opposed. we can sit on the fence like the shameful EU or we can do something about it.


By sitting idlely by - the EU by doing nothing is sticking its big ugly head in the sand.

Has anybody seen Prodi lately? I think that they may have been more sightings of Elvis.

l3rian

I hope USA conquerors Iraq, it will be a good thing and should lead to the first democracy of the middle east.

Iraq needs to made an example of, that dictators and corrupt governments will be "regime changed" for the good of the citizens of that state.

Corko

Iraq needs to made an example of, that dictators and corrupt governments will be "regime changed" for the good of the citizens of that state.

If l3rian was living out in such countrys - he could have not made the above comment.

I think that as a society we have to come to terms that in mamy countrys - they have not the luxery of free speech or democracy.

article6

In my opinion, Hussein not only restricts free speech and basic liberties, as has been claimed, but also tortures innocent people. How can he justify these attacks on fellow humans to himself? Although it is evil to take an innocent life, if not also a guilty one, forget not that Hussein must not be allowed to violate basic human rights.

It is clear from his refusal to allow a peaceful UN mission to inspect his weapons that he plans crimes upon the world. These crimes he plans will harm not only the target countries, but his own people, whom he would starve to build "just one more bomb". He must be deposed.

Certainly not be any means possible. We do not want to harm the people of Iraq even further, if we can help it. But it would be cruelty to the people of Iraq even to consider letting Saddam Hussein remain in power.

ykt0di9url7bc3

Sun Tzu states That you should attack wherever/whenever you are threatend.....that the wise Generals put themselves beyond defeat

• Iraq is an enemy of the USA and Isreal
• Iraq has chemical agents and is investing in delivery systems and other WMD's
• Saddam has no qualms about breaking UN regulations (which are in place to keep the peace and prevent another escalation)
• Saddam has no care for his people or for humna rights, but cares for his status and his level of power

Suppose we do nothing and let the regulations lax a little

One of 2 things can happen

[1]Saddam is content with his weapons and doesn't flex his military might , his reign ends due to death or succession and Iraq enters a new era of world diplomacy [2]Saddam continues his build up to a point of invading nearby countries or by aiding and habouring world terrorists, USA intervenes and Saddam throws his WMD's at Isreal and/or USA troop locations

Can anybody assure me that first option there is the course of history after we back off from Saddam?

IMHO the fact that you cannot garauntee things to turn out well, means I'd count the bodies now and stick to my beliefs rather than saying "I told you so" when it all goes wrong

JustHalf

Paraphrasing Sun Tzu, when the premise you're quoting under is FALSE, will get you nowhere.

Iraq is of no threat to the US and it's allies. If Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, and it uses them, Saddam will be wiped off the face of the earth.

Saddam is actually a pretty smart man. He's played the various factions in the country off each other for years, all to ensure that he keeps his nice cushy job. That's what his priority is. Even with the sanctions, Hussein is well looked after (which is why his people aren't). He's got it made.

Why would he risk it?

ykt0di9url7bc3

Originally posted by JustHalf
Paraphrasing Sun Tzu, when the premise you're quoting under is FALSE, will get you nowhere.

Art of War online text version, chapter 4 Tactical Dispositions
I dont have time to assemble a bibliography or analysis

Originally posted by JustHalf
Iraq is of no threat to the US and it's allies. If Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, and it uses them, Saddam will be wiped off the face of the earth.

Isreal is an Ally of the US, and do you think that the US general staff is going to wait for Saddam to kill thousands of innocent people before "wiping him off the face of the Earth"?

Originally posted by JustHalf
He's got it made.

Why would he risk it?

You cant say that previous heads of countries havent taken risks when it comes to expansion...and Saddam risked a lot on Kuwait!!!!

Its the fact that he can risk it, if he fully developes his WMD he can use it as a bargining chip, holding hostage much of the middle east.....We dont know what Saddam has in mind but we know that he cant be trusted to abide by the UN regulations and he is developing nasty weapons....

Take him out!

bonkey

Originally posted by SearrarD
Its the fact that he can risk it, if he fully developes his WMD he can use it as a bargining chip, holding hostage much of the middle east

Now, why would he do that. Did Sun Tzu not say you should attack wherever/whenever you are threatend?

Your justification for American ousting Saddam can also be used to explain why the 9-11 attacks were completely justified - because the middle-eastern world is, in many respects, threatened by Uncle Sam.

Saddam is also threatened by the US. He has been since the last war (and arguably before that). By Sun Tzu's reasoning, he was, therefore, perfectly correct in developing WMDs, in order to try and become a smart leader (deterrent == putting yourself beyond defeat), and would be perfectly correct in using it now that the US is being more antagonistic.

Sun Tzu's philosophy made great sense in a feudal land. In a world where this can equate from a sniper bullet to all-out-nuclear-war, I'd be pretty cautious about using him as the justification for military action.

Sun Tzu's greatest insight was understanding that the enemy will use the exact same logic as you, and that he is equally correct in doing so.

jc

DadaKopf

SearrarD: you can't go basing an entire opinion of this crisis on the writings of a Chinese military strategist from the fourth century BC because, quite simply, things are incredibly different now.

Politics and war are still based on power but the nature of that power has changed, as have the multitudinous strategies for dealing with it. Needless to say, things are a lot more complicated.

You would be better off reading up on Just War Theory, which has a more recent history and applies to current circumstances much better. In particular, the seven criteria approach to justifications of war and justifications in war (see http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm)

Principles of the Just War:

• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissable objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
• The ulimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissable targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm

The idea is that all seven criteria must be satisfied before any military action may be deemed 'just'.

Now, while it's not an airtight argument, and it may be criticised from all sides, these are generally the structures modern states in times of war operate within. They, therefore, provide us with an easily visualisable standard with which to decide whether intervention in Iraq is justified.

ykt0di9url7bc3

My apologies on the use of Sun Tzu (a passion of mine!), I was looking at the situation in Iraq, in that Saddam has broken UN regulations and America looks him up, they find him investing in WMD, i dont know about anybody else but that gives alarm bells in my head, Saddam is not nice person when it comes to USA and her allies...I stress that the threat of a nuclear attack is coming more and more likely as time goes on...

IMHO I dont want a person like Saddam having a nuclear weapon and I fully support anybody wanting to take that away from him


As for Sun Tzu, i just tried to quote something akin to common sense, where the USA and Isreal see a major nuclear threat they should remove it...

JustHalf

Originally posted by SearrarD
Art of War online text version, chapter 4 Tactical Dispositions
I dont have time to assemble a bibliography or analysis

I didn't say the quote was incorrect... I said that Saddam wasn't a threat.

ykt0di9url7bc3

well the weapons inspectors are being allowed back in to dismantle his "Toys"

justhalf: I've outlined why he is a threat, where you seem to believe that he is not going to use weapons on the premise that he wouldnt risk everything....would he?

Presto Mendoza

Originally posted by SearrarD


We dont know what Saddam has in mind but we know that he cant be trusted to abide by the UN regulations and he is developing nasty weapons....

Take him out!

The Guardian 19-10-01 Scott Ritter (former UN weapons inspector):
“Under the most stringent on-site inspection regime in the history of arms control, Iraq's biological weapons programmes were dismantled, destroyed or rendered harmless during the course of hundreds of no-notice inspections. The major biological weapons production facility -- al Hakum, which was responsible for producing Iraq's anthrax -- was blown up by high explosive charges and all its equipment destroyed. Other biological facilities met the same fate if it was found that they had, at any time, been used for research and development of biological weapons...No evidence of anthrax or any other biological agent was discovered."

Hans von Sponeck UN humanitarian coordinator 1998-2000:
“Iraq today is no longer a military threat to anyone. Intelligence agencies know this. All the conjectures about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq lack evidence.”

Who do you believe??

Meh

Originally posted by Presto Mendoza
Who do you believe??

If Saddam has no WMDs, why would he kick out the UN inspectors? If he has nothing to hide, surely he would be more than happy to let them search whatever they want. He could simply let a few UN officials look around for a few months/years and all the sanctions/air attacks would stop.

This refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors is prima facie evidence of guilt.

gandalf

Originally posted by Presto Mendoza


Who do you believe??

Well who do you believe Presto, there is no point posting quotes without your own opinion !!!!

Please add some of your own thoughts in future.

Gandalf.

JustHalf

Originally posted by SearrarD
justhalf: I've outlined why he is a threat, where you seem to believe that he is not going to use weapons on the premise that he wouldnt risk everything....would he?

Pretty much. If history is any guide, he always looks after his own ass first.

According to some reports I've heard, he only attacked Kuwait after the US made vague motions of consent. I'd like confirmation of this, either way, if anyone can get it.