Should America invade Iraq?

[Skyrad 0]

There is alot of talk here in the UK about an invasion of Iraq by American and British troops sometime in the near future. Alot of people in the UK are against this as they say there is no justification for it. No proof of Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and no UN mandate for such an attack. The media here would have the nation belive that all Americans are for such action is that the case and if so why? and why now? Why Iraq when allegedly the 9/11 hijackers were mainly Saudis? Whats your view?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Dumpster 0]

As an American, And a Gulf War Vet, and also a vet of the Bosnian thing, I don't actually see a clear reason for hitting Iraq, other than to settle some unfinished business, and it's kinda late in the game for that. Until I see a well-supported reason for an invasion, I really don't agree with it myself.

Easy Does It

[hobbes4star 0]

i belive that bush has already made up his mind to invade iraq. probably this winter or next spring. i am just wondering when we help saddam out of his office who is going to take his place?? and is his replacement going to be any better? or our we going to be forever keeping the middle east's leaders in check??

if fun were easy it wouldn't be worth having, right?

[billvon 3,070]

>The media here would have the nation belive that all Americans are
> for such action is that the case and if so why?

I'm not. I think we should, in general, leave countries alone unless they attack us. If Iraq sends a nuclear weapon our way? Blow them to bits. If we think that they might be getting the materials to one day build a nuclear weapon and then, even further in the future, might try to use it on us? That's true of every nation on the planet; we can't invade based on a supposition of what someone will do in the future.

Ten years ago Donald Rumsfeld said "As with all sovereign nations, we respect Iraq’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.” What's changed? We supported them militarily while they were gassing their own citizens. I see no reason why that is now reason to go to war with them, especially if it was OK back then to support them despite the human rights violations.

> and why now? Why Iraq when allegedly the 9/11 hijackers were
> mainly Saudis?

Because we can't find Bin Laden (or even most of Al Quaeda) and we're getting a lot of oil from the Saudis.

[Skyrad 0]

I agree it seems that president Bush has already decided to invade, but why? His stated aim of a regime change can only be achived by placing boots on the ground, I also question the value of wetting Iraqi sand with young American blood in order to change one despot for another. What does America stand to gain from this? Is it just an oil thing or am I being to cynical here?

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Why Iraq when allegedly the 9/11 hijackers were mainly Saudis?

True...but they recieved a lot of support from the Iraqi government. Not the Saudi government. Then you have the WMD issue. I can't really blame Iraq for supporting terrorism. They lost the overt war so they figured they would try covert this time. Why not use terrorists groups to do the job for you. All it costs you is money and your connections are usually deniable. All that said.....I think attacking Iraq is a bad thing that probably has to be done. A better answer would be to train and equip the Kurds in the North and let them do it. Oh.....and NOT screw them like the CIA did last time.

[Sebazz1 2]

Political thread........arrrrgggh must....resist

Ok this is the deal. The dude like threatens us a lot, kills his own people, kills his neighbours, promotes & pays suicide bombers to hit Isreal, has a mean disposition, attacked Kuwait for whatever reason, people say he is building weapons of mass destruction (you know the biological sh*t that like makes your skin peel of in excrutiating pain before you die an hour later) and is probably more than willing to fire that crap at us. The guy I am sure houses enemies of the west and probably helps them out. He is the enemy. Ya gotta show em who is boss.
(I have no proof ~ I have no Proof ~ just me rambling )

Do we attack? Tough decision I am glad I do not have to make. We need to decide if it is in our best interest to do something now before we are eating scud missles for breakfast or maybe if we lay off he will too? What do you do? I do not condone war and it is too easy to say F*ck em and kill em. But diplomacy usaully skates around the issues and things take too long to get resolved.....

I will support my country whatever it does. Wouldn't it be cool if he just croaked of a heart attack or something. That would be cool.........

[SBS 0]

Ok, here's a random question...

We know that approval ratings shoot through the roof when we go to war, and afterwards, a lot of times, they aren't so high...

If we are really going to attack, it's probably something that would be kept a little more secret, than to announce it to the entire world, wouldn't it? Sure, stuff leaks, but this is pretty wide-spread.

So, 2 questions:
A) Could this be a complete and total rumor?
B) Could this be a way that Bush and the administration are trying to maintain their approval ratings in the aftermath of 9/11? Afterall, they are pretty much done with the real activity that would directly effect public opinion...most of the rest of the 9/11 aftermath is going to be on paper and out of our view. Might they need something public? And if the ratings are good during the war, and bad afterwards, then why not just be poised for one? That's a way that you don't spend billions, you don't lose massive numbers of trooops, you don't actually offend anyone, cause you aren't really attacking, but you still look like a tough guy.

I'm not saying it's true, and not trying to spout conspiracy theory, but it kinda sorta makes some sense...any thought?

-S

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

The guy I am sure houses enemies of the west and probably helps them out

Probably? Uuumm....apparently you missed the story of Abu Nidal (One of the 20th ceturies most wanted terrorists, responsible for the Barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 200 and some Marines and the Olympic massacre of Israeli atheletes in Munich, as well as MANY other terrorist acts) supposedly died in his home of Suicide recently. There HAS to be more to that story.....So, yes...it's pretty clear he supports terrorism.

[Sebazz1 2]

Quote

There HAS to be more to that story.....So, yes...it's pretty clear he supports terrorism.

See I don't know these things. I do know we are in a war against terrorism so therefore........ we should attack them. I like your response...... Against it but something we have to do

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

any thought?

I don't think this is being done for any domestic gain. I think the administration is using this to do two things. #1 Keep world attention on Iraq and possibly gain support for an attack SHOULD it become absolutely necessary. #2 Cause tension in Iraq. Hoping the Iraqi government will implode all by itself and we don't have to do a thing. This tension will also cause a heightened state of alert for the Iraqi military. Causing them to move things around and generally be jumpy. This makes for an excellent environment to gather ALL kinds of intel. Like sattelite images of troops and materiel, to sigint, and even humint. It's nothing but good for us and shitty for them. Oh...and look at that....it has a nice domestic side effect as well. Pretty good plan if you ask me.

[billvon 3,070]

>Oh...and look at that....it has a nice domestic side effect as well.
> Pretty good plan if you ask me.

What effect is that?

[Skyrad 0]

Ok, so I'm being a bit of a devils advocate here, but....

'. The dude like threatens us a lot'
(The Bush administration has stated that it wants Sadam dead)

'kills his own people' (As do many countries eg: Turkey, Russia, Spain)


'promotes & pays suicide bombers to hit Isreal' (True but they were doing it before he started handing out cash anyway)

'he is building weapons of mass destruction (you know the biological sh*t ' (Hes had Biological weapons for over a decade and a half, why hasn't he used them on the west before if he intends to? Also many countries including Cuba which is on the US's doorstep have developed Bioweapons.)


'I am sure houses enemies of the west and probably helps them out' ( As does very many other countries)


'I will support my country whatever it does' Is supporting your country the same as supporting your government?

Something to consider?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[SBS 0]

Oh...and look at that....it has a nice domestic side effect
as well. Pretty good plan if you ask me.

-------------

I think if you put our two thoughts together, you have a pretty damn good reason to pretend you're going to war...

Hey, wanna write a book? he he he

:)

-S

PS - anyone else have thoughts on this?

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[Skyrad 0]

Abu Nidal died in his flat in INDIA! Anyone think we should bomb Delhi????

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Deuce 1]

Quote

If Iraq sends a nuclear weapon our way? Blow them to bits.

Golly. So should a cop let himself be shot once before returning fire, or is it OK to shoot once the weapon is seen?

"Oh, gee. We had lots of circumstantial evidence that he was preparing nukes, but we waited until he turned San Diego to glass, and now we'll strike"

That guy down your way was just convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence. Should he have been let free because noone saw him rape and kill that little girl?

This is the same thing. A man tells you you are his enemy. He tells you he wants to kill you. He picks up a bat, raises it and approaches you. At this point I would shoot him and stop the attack, but it appears you would wait until he struck you to justify defending yourself. But if the one strike killed you, you would not have the chance to defend yourself.

When a country declares us it's enemy, and vows Jihad upon us, that is probable cause to do a pat search for weapons. If they resist, we increase the amount of force necessary to verify our security.

International politics is just human nature writ large.

When I was a cop, people would report that they had witnessed their car get vandalized, keyed. "That's him!" they would cry, "get that rat-bastard! Oh, my nice new VW!" and the chase would be on. The young vandal would be given the habeus grabbus and then the fight would be on. Now the nice, urban victim would cry, "let him go!" "Don't hurt him!".

I don't mind that most people don't understand force and violence. I think it's a good thing. But don't sacrifice me and mine to Sadaams first bomb, so that you can then eliminate him as a threat to you and yours.

[quade 4]

Quote

If Iraq sends a nuclear weapon our way? Blow them to bits.

Obviously a bad chess move on their part, so it's pretty unlikely. They also don't have the technological means to do so at this time via ICBM (Probably the ONLY way we'd know if it actually came from them).

Quote

If we think that they might be getting the materials to one day build a nuclear weapon and then, even further in the future, might try to use it on us?

Well, that's really the problem then isn't it? They might not have an ICBM capable of delivering the weapon, but they have far more subtle means that are actually better from a non-traceable source point of view. A standard shipping container would do quite nicely. And who said it had to be a nuke anyway? A biological or chemical weapon is well within their means.

I look at the entire situation like this . . .

Imagine you're in an alley and a figure steps out of the shadows. You can't shoot yet because you don't know if the person is a real threat or simply taking out the garbage.

The figure raises his arm. Maybe he's waving "hi" and you still might not want to shoot yet.

Suddenly a red dot from a laser sight appears on your chest.

Do you wait for him to pull the trigger before you take action?

The situation is that the British and American public are going to have to give their leaders at least a small amount of slack because it's highly likely that the government leaders know quite a bit more about the capabilities of the enemy that the public does.

Recently, I've been pushing a web site called globalsecurity.org in an attempt to have folks see the unclassified reasons why it might be a good move to take the Iraqi capabilities out at this time. If the information on web site is correct, then I think we're looking at the red dot on our chests.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Skyrad 0]

'International politics is just human nature writ large. '

Great quote

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Deuce 1]

Quote

'International politics is just human nature writ large. '

Great quote

Hey, thanks. It's remotely possible it's an original, but I doubt it.

[SBS 0]

Obviously a bad chess move on there part,

------------

Quade, before you post again, please refer to the thread "there, their, and they're".

:)

he he he

-S

PS - it doesn't happen often, so just gotta make a little fun when it does. :)

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[freeflir29 0]

Abu Nidal died in his flat in INDIA! ***


Uuummmm.....No...get the facts straight.....and speaking of the "Rest of the Story"



www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/20/jordan.otsc/index.html

[quade 4]

Uh, what do you mean? ;^)

(THAT'S the one thing he got from my post? Sheesh!)

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Skyrad 0]

Doh! Sorry, brain and memory mal!!!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[billvon 3,070]

>Golly. So should a cop let himself be shot once before returning fire,
> or is it OK to shoot once the weapon is seen?

Once a weapon is drawn in a confrontation, blow the guy away.

Similarly, if Saddam so much as launches an aircraft towards the US, blow it up and keep going right on to Baghdad.

But what if your cop looks in a window and sees some gun oil on the guy's table, then sees the guy in his front yard? Is it OK for him to pull his weapon and kill the guy? After all, the guy might just have a gun. And at some time in the future, he might just take that gun and shoot a cop. You can't _prove_ he won't.

>This is the same thing. A man tells you you are his enemy. He tells
> you he wants to kill you. He picks up a bat, raises it and approaches
> you. At this point I would shoot him and stop the attack, but it
> appears you would wait until he struck you to justify defending
> yourself.

Not at all; he's attacking. But I would not shoot him with a high powered rifle if he was sitting at a desk a mile away, sending threatening emails and shaking his bat ferociously for the cameras. He is simply not a threat that far away. Is it a good idea to keep a careful watch on him? Yes. Should you watch for his cohorts to sneak up on you? Definitely. Should you take out, from a distance, anyone who sends you nasty email and owns a bat? You'd be in jail pretty fast if you tried that.

>But if the one strike killed you, you would not have the chance to
> defend yourself.

Fortunately, one strike of any sort would not kill the US. We have survived attacks much worse than anything Iraq could reasonably do to us. And, now that we know what to expect, we can stop it before it gets here.

[Shark 0]

Depends what you mean by invade. If you mean invade and occupy, NO.

But I do want the SOFs to go in and take out "So Damn Insane."