Attack Iraq?

[mactavish]

For all you warmongers and peacemongers out there, here is a multifaceted question for you:

A. Should the United States attack Iraq?

B. If the United States does attack, should they do so alone or as part of a NATO or other multinational coalition?

C. What form should an assault on Iraq take? Strictly air strikes? Tanks? Soldier on the ground? Assassination squads?

D. What should the eventual outcome of such an attack/invasion be? Kill Hussein? Replace the government? When is it enough?

E. What impact will an attack/invasion have on the Middle East? Europe? The United States? Elsewhere?

mactavish out.

[ComaBoy]

A: No
B-E: N/A

[Eric R.]

Originally posted by mactavish
For all you warmongers and peacemongers out there, here is a multifaceted question for you:

A. Should the United States attack Iraq?

Yes, he posses a threat to the region, to the world and most importatly in this Americans eyes to my country. He has a record of using every weapon in his inventory when he has to. He committed aggressive invasion on two of his neighbors, and toward his own people. He may or may not have particiapted in the 9/11 atacks if he did or did not is ilrelevent, the fact he is the only world leader which one can even think to have been involved says a lot about his capability and his so called right to continue in power.

B. If the United States does attack, should they do so alone or as part of a NATO or other multinational coalition?

It would be nice, but not necssesary.

C. What form should an assault on Iraq take? Strictly air strikes? Tanks? Soldier on the ground? Assassination squads?

By any means necessesary.

D. What should the eventual outcome of such an attack/invasion be? Kill Hussein? Replace the government? When is it enough?

All of those meet the diffination of Regime change.

E. What impact will an attack/invasion have on the Middle East? Europe? The United States? Elsewhere?

Plenty, but bearable

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by mactavish

A. Should the United States attack Iraq?

YES!! YESSS!!! YESSSSS!!!!!
Why?
Well, there's always some bullshit reason to kill people!

B. If the United States does attack, should they do so alone or as part of a NATO or other multinational coalition?

ALL OF THEM! FROM EVERYWHERE!!! AT ONCE!!!
They'll never know what hit 'em!!!!

C. What form should an assault on Iraq take? Strictly air strikes? Tanks? Soldier on the ground? Assassination squads?

Everything!!! Troops. Air Raids. Assassination. Gas. Nuclear bombs. ALL OF IT!!
I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

D. What should the eventual outcome of such an attack/invasion be? Kill Hussein? Replace the government? When is it enough?

Total annihilation!! Your Commie..err.. Iraqi has no regard for human life. Not even his own. Make room for a new world order!

E. What impact will an attack/invasion have on the Middle East? Europe? The United States? Elsewhere?

WHO CARES?! They're all just rats biding their time, till they have the guts to launch the bomb! THE BOMB, I SAY!!

Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.

Dr. Joe Merkwürdigliebe

P.S. - JA! I can walk! Mein Fuhrer, I CAN WALK!

[Kaiddin]

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy


YES!! YESSS!!! YESSSSS!!!!!
Why?
Well, there's always some bullshit reason to kill people!



ALL OF THEM! FROM EVERYWHERE!!! AT ONCE!!!
They'll never know what hit 'em!!!!



Everything!!! Troops. Air Raids. Assassination. Gas. Nuclear bombs. ALL OF IT!!
I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.



Total annihilation!! Your Commie..err.. Iraqi has no regard for human life. Not even his own. Make room for a new world order!



WHO CARES?! They're all just rats biding their time, till they have the guts to launch the bomb! THE BOMB, I SAY!!

Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.

Dr. Joe Merkwürdigliebe

P.S. - JA! I can walk! Mein Fuhrer, I CAN WALK!

No comment.

[qerlin]

I don't think there's a point anymore. The entire Arab/Muslim world's the enemy now. Let him take a few of his neighbors out first...save us the trouble.

[Dan Stack]

Joe,

Is that what you really think of the United States of America, run by a bunch of evil people who look for any excuse to kill people? I think your flippant response is a disservice. Disagree all you want, but I think a more reasoned response is appropriate.

But, if that is the type of discussion, let us see how I can do...

[rant]
Then again, judging by the opinions some have of the USA, maybe we'll go in, capture as many civilians as we can, and torture them to death over a period of a year or two, maybe televising it on pay-per-view...
[/rant]


What should be done with Iraq then? I don't think we should accept the promise he's a nice boy now, the promise he always makes when he fears an attack. Sounds like a promise from a Hitler or Stalin.

My opinion:

The Gulf War is not over. Its cease-fire was authorized by the UN, which the European powers are rather enamored of. The terms of that cease-fire have not been met. A cease-fire is not an end to a war, it is a pause. Kinda like the decades long pause between North Korea and South Korea.

A coalition would be useful, but not needed. The assault should be the force needed to inflict the maximum number of enemy casualties while minimizing the American casualties. As for assassination, possibly, but only if intelligence believes it will have the desired effect. I don't know enough to say whether nukes should be used or not. Tactical nukes may have a good military advantage, but their use may have too much of a backlash to make it worthwhile. But I'm not a military expert. I'd defer the proper force to the experts and evaluate the options they gave me.

[Ramage]

I know most people will know my response up-front, but I still feel I need to speak.

I feel an assault on Iraq is a mistake. Unlike the Gulf War, we have no direct reason for attacking Iraq currently; I have heard the arguments that the war never ended, but by that standard we should attack North Korea, since that not-war never ended either.

One prime reason we have for attacking Iraq is that they may have weapons of mass destruction. Okay, plausible. So, if we do a full-on assault on Iraq, most likely they will use these weapons. Probably the weapons will not hit the USA, but they could hit Turkey, Israel, and other nearby states who are technically our allies.

Will we be going it alone? No, England will probably be there, too. That's about it. Turkey might allow us to use bases, as might Israel, but that would be about the extent of it. Yes we have bases in Saudi Arabia, but given how unpopular the House of Saud is at home, they would be wise to tell us not to use the bases, otherwise Arabia may find itself looking for a new royal house (or other form of government...).

I have a favorite general who might surprise you: W.T. Sherman. Why? Because he did not kid about war. His vision was simple -- if you ARE going to go to war, GO! Do not do half measures (as we did in Desert Cakewalk). Use everything you have at your disposal, attack suddenly, brutally, often, and make sure the enemy is in no position to fight afterwards. Then work even harder on the peace.

At the moment I have the feeling if the USA were to attack Iraq it would do very little good and much harm. Even if we do take out Hussein, we must then be on hand to rebuild that country, not just for a month or two after the war, but for years and years. I am not sure America is willing to put in that kind of committment.

I know we have all rehearsed our reasons, pro and con, here before. I know the opinions for and against me. I know most of the arguments. But still I feel that I must speak.

[Dan Stack]

Actually Ramage, for the most part, I agree with your reasoning, though not your conclusions.

Personally, I think the Gulf War was a big-time screw-up. We wanted to curry favor with the leaders of the Middle East, hence not finishing the job.

Then shortly after the cease-fire, when it became apparent the inspections were not working, we pretty much ignored it, when there was still a prayer of keeping international support.

(And I'm not unaware of the irony that we supported Iraq once upon a time, in that Iraq hated a nation we hated...)

So now the current administration has inherited a mess left by the two previous presidents. Bush (89-93) who didn't finish the fight and Clinton (93-01) who didn't prosecute the peace. Both managed to create the environment where both Arabs and Europeans feel sympathy for Iraq and place the blame for the suffering of the Iraqi people on the US alone, totally ignoring the fact that Hussein gladly lets his people starve. He could end the sanctions by allowing inspections. He could end the suffering of his people by using the money made from oil shipments to feed his people. The people of Iraq suffering serves Hussein's goals. Does he tell them "we have enough money for food but I'm going to use it for weapons research and paying for Palestinian terrorists"? No, he tells his people "you suffer because of the American devils". We've know that for nearly a decade but really don't do anything about it.

I'd rather Iraq use what weapons it might have today than use the weapons it will have tomorrow.

A major screwup of American foreign policy caused the problem to be what it is today. But it will be worse tomorrow.



btw, the reason for going after Iraq and not North Korea is simple, in my opinion. We know China will help North Korea. Iraq, despite all blustering, will really stand alone. Never get into a war that you don't think you can win. Coldly practical I know, but realistic. (Ironically, that is the basis of the Powell Doctrine of the Gulf War)

[Phantom]

The Iraq question has been haunting us for the last ten years, why the rush to get rid of Saddam now?

[Dr. Jonas Bashir]

ITOS

It's the Oil, Stupid!

It's always been the oil, and it will always be until the Earth is depleted from it. There are other oppressive, 'USA-menacing', regimes, but the US doesn't go after them. GWB needs to secure his position (and a falling US economy) by securing the Arab region with a new puppet. Saddam cut his strings some time ago.

BTW, Joe, they'll never understand European sarcasm.

[Dan Stack]

Originally posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir
ITOS


BTW, Joe, they'll never understand European sarcasm.

As part of "they"... Not appreciating and not understanding are two different entities. I understood it. I simply did not appreciate it as relevant.

Does oil motivate US foreign policy? Duh! Without it, the Saudi royal family would find life a bit more difficult. Does it suck? Yeah it does. But that is reality.

Is it the only motivator? No. Hell, sometimes we don't even need a war on Communism. For example, unless there were caches of oil that only Clinton knew about, our involvement in Yugoslavia seemed to have little to do with securing oil. Nor does our involvement in Afghanistan. Another of those USA-menacing regimes. Unless we want the poppies for ourselves...

[Dan Stack]

Originally posted by Phantom
The Iraq question has been haunting us for the last ten years, why the rush to get rid of Saddam now?

A new administration. Bush I dropped the ball on it. Clinton tried to ignore it.

I'm not 100% sure why Bush II wants to. I hope that it is because of the threat Iraq poses. But it is within possibility that he is simply continuing what his father began. Or if you subscribe to the the evil American theory, he wants to bathe in the blood of Iraqi children.


As to why the rush now, if it is because Iraq poses a threat, I would imagine its like discovering you have ten years of overdue taxes that are continuing to acrue interest. Best get it settled as soon as posisble, even if it is painful and your own fault it is still a problem.

I think it is also because it has become clear that there are people who want to kill Americans. And Iraq has shown the desire to make weapons that kill lots of people. They also seem to be the types of people who would like to be in touch with those people who want to kill lots of Americans.

Personally I suspect we'll be saying the same about Saudi Arabia in a decade or two when the royal family is overthrown and a fundamentalist movement takes over.

[Ramage]

On the coldly practical end, one reason Bush II wants a war is that the US electorate rarely unseats a war-time president. An active war is entirely to his benefit politically.

Is that the only reason? No, but I think it is a serious one.

[Phantom]

Originally posted by Dan Stack


As to why the rush now, if it is because Iraq poses a threat, I would imagine its like discovering you have ten years of overdue taxes that are continuing to acrue interest. Best get it settled as soon as posisble, even if it is painful and your own fault it is still a problem.

The threat level hasn't changed in the last ten years. He always has been a sun baked, psychopathic loonie with a gun against his peoples head and the other hand on nuke...He had NBC capability then, he has it now the world knew it, and still knows it. Bush didn't drop the ball, he caved into public pressure. It was the American people as a whole that wanted the boys back. If it had been done back then the Coalition would have been reacting to Iraqi aggression, but now the Americans would be the aggressors, which gives the Iraqis the world sympathy vote.

Also, as the UN has been the mouth piece of the 3rd World for years...How many nations will be backing the US up? The big ones possibily (and that is with undeniable proof), no one in the area. That is assuming, of course, the UN dosen't declare such an attack as a crime against humanity.