[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by wab I think I will leave this thread now.

lol...what's wrong? The heat is getting to you? Ya know, he's right.

 

[DanG]

Quote:

Originally posted by neil When I was listening to NPR the other day, a debate was stirring regarding the invasion of Iraq. One historian compared the Iraq "weapons of mass destruction" cache building with Germany. Well before World War II, it was known throughout Europe that Germany was building their munitions and army, which, at the time, was illegal according to international laws or treaties/pacts (unfortunately, I cannot cite which laws/treaties/pacts these are -- maybe someone can help me on this one). However, no serious action was taken to stop the activity.

I believe that was the Versailles Treaty from the end of the first World War. By the thirties Europeans were feeling guilty about imposing such strict limitations on fellow Europeans who had many of the same motives -- territorial expansion and latter-day colonization. This can be seen in the politics of the UK, especially in the conciliatory manner of Neville Chamberlain who tried to negotiate a peace with Germany. First Germany took over the German-speaking parts of several countries. Europe said, "well, it's their manifest destiny I guess." When Poland was finally invaded, people began to believe Churchill that Hitler would stop at nothing. I wonder when people will realize the same thing with Saddam...

Quote:

One might ask what the inevitabilities are if Iraq is not forced to stop building such weapons (i.e. Iraq's future military moves against surrounding countries). And one might ask what the inevitabilities are if Iraq is forced to stop building such weapons (i.e. how the Iraqi civilians, government, and economy will be affected, as well as the involvement and response from non-participating and non-concurring countries). The key word here is forced.

As I suggested above, I think that history has shown us what is inevitable if Iraq is left unchecked. Will Iraq threaten to take over all of Europe in a whirlwind offensive? No, but we may see re-occupation of surrounding Arab countries (who will once again beg for our help) or perhaps nuclear weapons being shot at Israel only to land short in Saudi Arabia (this happened with many Scud missiles in the Gulf War). I heard it said on TV that Saddam's greatest weakness is his own people. Clearly this is true. Gaining their trust and cooperation is a daunting task, but possible. They do not have the Stockholm syndrome -- they're just afraid of Saddam. That's where the word force comes in -- we need them to understand that they need to force Saddam out and that we'll be there to help them.

 

[andrzejpw]

I agree on many points with you DanG. You got the history parts right. lol, it helped to just have taken World History in high school. . .

If Iraq remains unchecked, I'm positive the outcome will not be good. I agree Dan: Iraq would occupy surrounding countries. Maybe even Iran?

Otoh, if we oust saddam, who will replace him?

 

[kerelybonto]

addrzejpw, I think that's the question of the hour. The only real opposition groups in Iraq are the various parties of the Iraqi National Congress, most (all?) of which are Kurdish and state that one of their goals is the establishment of a independent Kurdish state. That sure as hell ain't gonna happen -- Turkey, a NATO member, would be scared ****less.

I think it's been estimated that the Iraqi National Congress could field an army of up to about 40,000 men. Saddam has about 375,000 regulars and over 650,000 more reserves, so this wouldn't be a Northern Alliance v. Taliban type of war. The US would have to commit a significant force. If the US does most of the fighting, it'd be a good excuse not to give the IRN what they want ... we'd probably see some sort of East Timor-esque UN operation to set up a new government.

kerelybonto

 

[Mr.PD]

OKAY, I got to throw in my two cents.
Who the heck are we to decide who should run a country other than our own? I agree that what we read in our press and see on our tv is not always the truth.
I firmly believe that each country has the right to do and be whatever they want. If the people of Iraq don't want to oust Saddam then that is their choice. I know that there are those in Iraq that do. There are also those in the US that don't want GW in office.
If Iraq invades another country, that is their problem. Moving in on Iraq is the same as Iraq moving in on someone else. This preemptive move is very upsetting to me because I see the US govt doing that same move to it's people all the time (think gun control). What someone may or may not do in the future is not relevent to today.
We should protect out military people from crack pot socialist judges in some "world" court. World courts can only be legitimate if we work under a world government. Thank God we don't do that yet.
YES, I am an isolationist.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.PD YES, I am an isolationist.

So, what should we do? Wait until Iraq actually nukes the US or one of our friendly neighbors before we strike, cuz ya know it would be too late.

Isolationist=near sighted fool

We're a country that needs to do business with every democracy out there and there is absolutely no way we would survive without doing business and securing (read: defend) our worldwide relationships (most importantly japan and europe).

 

[DanG]

As gloco pointed out, that's exactly the problem -- we can't just sit back and wait for somebody to attack us. Furthermore, this wouldn't be a pre-emptive strike -- Iraq has already invaded neighboring countries and attacked our allies.

If you claim we shouldn't have allies then we'll have a very hard time running our economy back up to the point where it was in early 2001. I agree that our government often tries to take away too many of our civil liberties and sometimes imposes its own judgment abroad where it's not asked for or needed. It's true that we're often left defending allies like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait which fund and supply troops for terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and Hamas that attack us and our allies. But without these connections we'd be far worse off and it would be quite likely that we'd need other countries to come and step in on our behalf -- think U.K. and Canada. Now would you want Mounties policing your town?

 

[gloco]

and it seems to be getting worse:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/790452.asp?pne=msn

 

[Tuberoller]

These kinds of debates just kill me.It's easy enough to say "let's send some troops over there and oust this guy cause he might do something".Yes,he has a history of doing such things and no, he cannot be trusted.Do you guys actually believe that if he has nukes he won't use them this time? I promise if he does,he will.this will not be a run and gun.we will lose lots of troops.We do not have widespead support for this action and we need it.the last time we went to war with Iraq we were written huge Checks by the Saudis and Japan, neither will do the same this time around.This will be an expensive,long term action.Our economy is already in shambles,if we go there and loose a bunch of troops and this ends up costing billions of dollars that no one else is willing to help with,what do you think our economy will look like afterwards or during this war.What if Sadaam hurls a nuke at our troops or Isreal?I'm not completely against a move to oust Sadaam but I think better planning and more support is prudent.

I will say that any nation who chooses not to support us is no friend of ours.it has become a regular occurence for the US to sacrifice troops and money to protect or help some other country only to have them critisise us when it is time for us to protect our interests.many American lives have been lost for causes that did not directly involve us.I am disgusted with people like the French who sneered at me when myself an other MARINES traveled there years ago.If it were not for US soldiers fighting and dying for the liberation of France they would speaking German right now.I know I have veered off on a tangent here but my anger and disgust is directed at those nations who would ask for our help in their time of need and turn their backs in ours.


If you want to know how strong anti-American sentiments are, ask any troop who has traveled abroad in uniform.Germany is the worst place I have ever been and they are certainly no friends of ours.The term "allies" is used so loosely recently we would be led to believe that we have friends everywhere and the fact is we don't.Let's see how many troops our "friends and allies" commit when the bullets start flying.

I won't even get started about the stinking UN and the world courts.

 

[Mr.PD]

Quote:

Originally posted by gloco So, what should we do? Wait until Iraq actually nukes the US or one of our friendly neighbors before we strike, cuz ya know it would be too late. Isolationist=near sighted fool We're a country that needs to do business with every democracy out there and there is absolutely no way we would survive without doing business and securing (read: defend) our worldwide relationships (most importantly japan and europe).

It is still a matter of speculation that Iraq will attack anyone. You act like this is a fact. With Bush running the CIA we should know ahead of time if an attack is eminent, plenty of time to respond.

I know that in todays world economy that isolationism doesn't work. I also understand that protecting oil in the mideast is our primary goal there. Yes oil is important to our national security. I just find it rather egotistical that we think we have the right to change the leadership of another country. The time for isolation passed a very long time ago.

I agree with Tuberoller that we had better drum up some support from other countries. We can't aford to make this war on our own. In fact I agree with everything Tuberoller stated. Look at Kuwait, we saved their butt and now they treat us like we pooped in their cereal.

One last thing, we do a lot of business with non-democratic countries.( think China)

Oh sorry, another last thing. I'm not a fool.

 

[acs236]

Whether or not we should take action in Iraq, I think the Bush owes the country a thorough explanation of why action needs to be taken. He needs to lay out his case in its entirety. It would certainly be a smart political move. Hmmm... I guess I don't expect it to happen.