Iraq

[kittie]

Well as it's been a bit quite in here lately I thought I'd bring this one up.

What does everyone think about a possible war in Iraq.

Being from the UK, I can give your my perspective.  I think it's wrong - I know that things in Iraq need to change, but surely there's some other way to do this rather than bomb people?  I would have thought the combined Intelligence Services on US and UK could have orchestrated a coup or something.

Most people in this country (if you believe statistics) are against the UK getting involved.  It's even been mooted that Tony Blair would lose his job if he decided we were going to war.

Just wondered what everyone else thought.

[superninjaadmin]

My thoughts on this Iraq thing is that we are releasing a test baloon, not that we're really going to go in there and start bombing.  It's all for gaining world attention on the issues involving Iraq - nothing more than that.  Chalk it up to world politics...simple as that.  

I agree with you = I think it's wrong to go to war with Iraq, too.  The timing is not right, the countries in the Middle East are very volitile - and it's all VERY VERY COMPLICATED!!!  The Arab states may publicly say they don't like the Iraq regime, but at the same time, they aren't going to support a US sponsored war against their Arab brothers in Iraq.  Kuwait was different because Sadaam invaded his neighboring Arab country - it was apples and oranges.  

Sadaam is thumbing his nose at the world and pushing buttons to see how far he can go because he knows he can.  Unfortunately, I fear that before a war is supported, in the future more very horrific tragedies (Sept. 11 and even worse) will have to occur first **before** people in this world are angry enough to really do something about it.....

History proves over and over that it's just human nature and we have a very short memory....

(just my humble $.02)

SNA in AK

[patphi]

So let me get this straight.  It wrong to do something to stop Saddam's insanity and perhaps save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.  But it's OK to let him continue killing, maiming, threatening, murdering, etc. etc.

SNA in AK said that there will need to be more tragedies like Sept. 11 before the World Court decides to do anything.  How many more innocent people need to lose their lives before we (US, UK, etc) decides enough is enough?

I am not partiuclarly in favor of a war.  I have one son already who is serving in the US Navy and ever since 9/11 we never know where he is or when he will be back into his home port.  

I also havetwo grandsons who are old enought to serve or near enough to not be comfortable about them being called up to serve.  Consequently, I am not in favor or a war.

On the other hand, another tragedy like 9/11 and I just might volunteer myself - even at my age.

[disallusioned]

     The problem with Iraq is that they are supposedly preparing for nuclear and/or chemical bombs.  If we wait till this occurs, the devastation of 9-11 will seem like a warning shot over the bow of a boat.  Do we wait till they have workable bombs that could kill thousands upon thousands, and last for generations, as the nuclear bomb would?  Given the options I'm afraid war might be the only way to get around this possibility.  Sadam has continuously failed to allow inspectors in to all locations as they were supposed to be so that we know that nuclear and chemical weapons are not being developed.  When he has allowed access, it has been on his timeframe, allowing him to ensure that nothing is there to be found.  If he has nothing to hide, then why not allow the inspectors in and let them do their job.  Then none of the rest of this talk would be pertinent.  But he isn't allowing that, so we have to do something to enforce the words of the agreement he signed which origianally allowed for the inspector's visits.  How do we enforce something like that?  Words alone have not done it.  Fines have not worked.  Maybe it will take a show of force, which Sadam is counting on the rest of th world not to support therefore making the US be the heavies in this play.
    If President Bush believes that there is a risk of nuclear or chemical weapons being used against the US, or other countries, and that they are being developed in Iraq, then I do think that some steps need to be taken to neutralize that threat.  I don't want it to go to war anymore than anyone else, but I support the US government if that is what is decided is needed.

[ControlledChaos]

Hubby fought in the Gulf war and his opinion is that Saddam should have been eliminated then.  Ever since the Gulf war he has been stockpiling weapons and making a mockery out of the operations that took place.  Evil men do not stop - look at Hitler - once they have the taste they want more, even when the majority are against them.  I don't want another war (although hubby is now out of the army he is still eligible to be re-called should the need arise) but I do feel that Saddam should be removed from power.

Just my view

Val

[radaro]

About ten years ago (don't hold me to the time frame but definitely before the Gulf War) Israel bombed one of Iraq's "pharmaceutical" factories which was in fact a factory for making chemical weapons.  At that time, the world came down hard on Israel.  Maybe their intelligence was just years ahead of everyone else's.

I, too, can't understand why Sadaam was left in power after the Gulf War unless the US was playing "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know".

[juspeachy]

I usually stay out of these kinds of discussions, but felt compelled to add my two cents.

The US has been the unofficial  "police" of the world for several years now.  Not only that, but we also pour millions of dollars (and resources) into war-torn countries trying to help them get back on their feet.  We are even on the verge of paying damages to the ancestors from our slavery days, but that is a topic for another discussion.

If other countries don't want to support us in a "show of force" to stop a madman, then I say, let's take our tanks, airplanes, food, and money back; and put it to good use in our own country to help employ, feed, and protect our own people.  

It is unfortunate that we waited so long before contemplating taking action.  Sometimes, that makes it even more difficult to justify.  I think the biggest fear (and possible explanation) is that the Vietnam Conflict was so unpopular and everyone is afraid of history repeating itself.

I'm done now.

JusPeachy

[chevygirl55]

I agree.  How many more have to die before we take action?  All those who are opposed will certainly be looking to the US for help if and when attacked.  Isn't being proactive in this case better than being reactive?  We are not talking about eliminating someone because we do not agree on their lifestyle.  We are talking about keeping millions of people safe from this animal.  

It is difficult to comprehend that some of these people do not value the human life and existance as most civilized people do. More drastic measures need to be taken when dealing with those who will take your life and not give it a second thought.

And because we do value human life and liberty, this decision is not an easy one and is open to debate.  If it was an easy thing for our conscience then we would be no better than Saddam.  

I say we should have taken him out during the Gulf War and we should take him out now.

chevygirl55

[superninjaadmin]

I was puzzled about this, too - during the time back when the Gulf War ended -- and that Sadaam was still left in power.  I very clearly remember General Norman Schwartzkoff (not sure how to spell name) telling everyone who was questioning "Why is Sadaam still there?" and the General simply said that the reason was that the "agreement" with the Arab states and other world nations was that the Gulf war agenda was not to eliminate Sadaam... the "agreement" was to liberate Kuait - not liberate Kuait and eliminate Sadaam...  Not that the US wouldn't have still gone in there and wiped him out - We all wanted to do that!  Unfortunately, it was not part of "the deal"......

So, that's why "So-damn Insane" is still there.....thumbing his nose.  YUCK!!!  This entire Iraq issue really angers me, too, because we should have kept going back then until we got him.  I do think we tried bombing him to kill him, but, So-damn kept hiding, and he kept killing using his own innocent people as shields and they were all getting killed - and everyone in the world was watching this and getting sick of seeing innocent people getting killed all the time.  That's another reason why we stopped when we did.

I sincerely hope and pray that we won't have to experience another horrible tragedy like we did on Sept. 11 to wake people up around the world - to make them angry enough, and to convince them that we cannot tolerate So-damn's weasel ways any longer.  I'm all for going in there and making him a smear on the map of Iraq, but world politics makes things very complicated.  It's very scary.  YIKES!!!  

SNA

[dragonladybug]

You're right - we (USA) basically weren't allowed to finish the job in Iraq because of the scope of the UN Resolution; the scope was to liberate Kuwait and force Saddam to retrreat.  Immediately that was done, the US started taking heat for "prolonging" the war.  It's sad because now it needs to be done all over again and it could have been resolved 10 years ago.  The world expects the US to be the world's policeforce, then wants to whine about how we do it.  We send billions of dollars every year to war torn or starving countries - some of these countries are run by dictators who keep the $$ for themselves and their cronies, leaving thousands or millions of their own people to starve.  These same countries then have the nerve to berate us for our foreign policy and tell us that the terrorist attacks are our own fault.

I also say we take back any aid that our tax dollars have provided - and refuse to send more to any country that doesn't support us.  Why should we continue to forcibly extort tax money from our citizens to placate these greedy whiners?  (And yes, I do mean forcibly extort, but that's another tirade.)

DLB / Debra

[fireproof]

I wish I could go ahead 50 years to see what history has to say about this.  

We all know now that if Hitler had been eliminated any time before he and his invaded Austria (that was his first overt move - right?), WWII might have been avoided.  Many in Europe knew this at the time (the warnings were clear to many, even in the 1930s), but the US was reluctant.  Now the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it.  I don't understand why the UN won't rule on this; Saddam is a power hungry madman, and (since I believe that religion is not an issue with him but an excuse), his neighbors are in grave danger as well (didn't Hitler have a treaty PROMISING not to invade somewhere - Austria, Poland, I don't remember - but he did it anyway).

[superninjaadmin]

Yes you are correct, Radaro, Hitler had a treaty not to invade Czechoslovakia, but he found a loophole by taking over a very important and strategic "part" of the country called "Sudetenland , which in a sense ended up giving him complete control of the country...  I'm afraid that Sadaam will find his loopholes, too, if we don't act soon.  

SNA

Edited by superninjaadmin on 13/09/02 03:52 AM.

[radaro]

While I would like to be credited with the historical information, it is really fireproof who should get the credit.

[smithj]

I'm in the minority here, but I don't think the US should get involved, yet.
We went in once and didn't do much.  
If we take Saddam out of power, then who's to say the next regime isn't going to do the same.
We can't just ignore 200 years of our history by saying we're going to attack countries b/c they "may" be a threat against us.
This is far bigger than just Iraq.  This is a Middle East crisis, one that the US has already put our nose in a bit too much.
I mean, c'mon, Bush goes to the UN says we need to do something about Iraq (hoping to get agreement of Allied troops to use force) Iraq agrees to the weapons inspectors (which is a joke) and Bush is already checking to make sure he doesn't need Congressional approval to declare war.  It's insane.
Let's finish the first job (bin Laden) before we move on to the next, that's what happened the first time we went in to Iraq.  
Aside from the fact that we know far more other "hostile" countries in the "Evil Axis" have nuclear capabilities.
I saw we should've had intelligence in there long ago and we should get some in there now.  
Our economy is already a mess and Bush is just looking for something to get his approval rate up.
People have lost lives and it's tragic, but far more will if we don't know what we're getting ourselves into.

[chevygirl55]

Have you seen Tony Blair's expose?  Seems there is as much to this monster (Saddam) as our own government is saying.  I still say we get him and get him now.

chevygirl55