# Attack Iraq? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 15, 2002, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010 "2002-07-15T05:26:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/21 "2002-07-19T16:31:04Z")
I think that the Frontline link I provided makes it pretty clear that the United States has some justification for going after Saddam Hussein. WWII is often viewed by historians as being the inevitable result of the uneasy peace which followed WWI. The dismantling of German factories in the Ruhr Valley bears some economic resemblance to prolonged economic sanctions on Iraq. In other words: Saddam is pissed, another war is going to happen one way or another. **France** Still blow nukes up in the Pacific. [outrageous French accent] Hey, don’t you fuck with us, Ami pigs! _flicks cigarette ash_[/outrageous French accent] ---
**Author:** ![Sparc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Sparc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparc)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/22 "2002-07-19T17:10:58Z")
Beagle… I was posting without having read the thread since I was somewhat confused as to my precise location. With morning coffee in hand, enjoying my first cigarette I chocked on a certain other post, saw a link where I could comment on its outrageousness and followed it. Still haven’t read this thread. I have no idea as to your detailed opinion as regards the whole matter. My first hand impression is that you might favor the full frontal approach a little more than subtlety, but then again I haven’t the foggiest of what I am talking about right now, so ignore whatever I said and accept my apologies for barging into the party brandishing cutlasses and tenterhooks as we corsairs are want to. Carry on. Sparc ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/23 "2002-07-19T17:31:46Z")
**Sparc** No problem. Actually, my position is confused. I see arguments for taking out Saddam but don’t know about the ensuing peace, probabilities, or effects of the war. He **El Jeffe** did kind of go after Europe generally. Personally I like Europe. The politics can get rather confusing though. It would still be breaking news if France became a strategic nuclear counterweight to the United States. Especially for Iraq. I don’t think Russia will go to the mat for Saddam either. Generally, though, you are right. If France, the UK, Russia, China, and whoever else you named all said, “Hey U.S., don’t do that or we will nuke you.” Ah, only a stupid President would not listen. ---
**Author:** ![Estilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Estilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Estilicon)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/24 "2002-07-19T19:06:32Z")
Just for the record: > [@](#): > > The military coalition that fought in the gulf consisted of: > Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, The United Kingdom, and the United States. > > ``` > The war also was financed by countries that were unable to send in troops. More than billion were pledged and received. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were the largest donors. Switzerland also contributed to the allies, this after being neutral during both World War I and World War II. > > ``` I am sure the U.S. could have fought that war all by themselves. Other’s helped as much as they could though, both in that war and in the peace missions all around the world. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/25 "2002-07-19T21:08:48Z")
"Amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics”. — Field Marshall Erwin Rommel For modern warfare. Jet fuel and gasoline are probably the two most important needs. With large supplies of both _at the location of the war_ a modern military cannot function. Now, imagine prosecuting a war when the only secure supply of fuel is 4000 miles away. AND that supply is only available if the civilian population endures high prices and possibly rationing. That’s the scenario we are faced with if we try to wage war without at least logistical support from the rest of the world. If the Arabs aren’t willing to sell us fuel in support of the war, as a practical matter, we end up with nukes, and a small amount of air/ground forces able to function. Make no mistake, **the Oil producing nations hold our war machine hostage**. Unless we are willing to first invade one of them and capture their oil production _and refining_ capacity intact, we cannot prosecute a war halfway arround the world without their help. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/26 "2002-07-19T21:22:59Z")
Um, that should be “Without\* large supplies of both…”. \ ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/27 "2002-07-19T21:58:29Z")
**Tejota** There is a [strategic petroleum reserve](http://ug-sprtech.sandia.gov/). Of course mid air refueling takes care of many logistical problems. I do not think the US would be facing the dire situation faced by the Afrika Corps. Rationing is a possibility. Interesting you mention invading if the OP and ECs cut off oil production. Hmmm. That would make a good thread by itself. ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/28 "2002-07-19T22:03:44Z")
**Beagle** , as **Tejota** mentioned, you need the fuel _at the location of the war_. I actually believe that the US could just about manage without the support of all but one ‘staging’ nation. However, just to achieve that would necessarily involve more a longer war or more casualties (since you won’t me able to amass the same amount of firepower without allied forces or allied bases to launch from) and a vast economic cost to the US, since it would require mass mobilisation of reserves and National Guard and potentially pressing civilian freight vessels and aircraft into military use. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/29 "2002-07-19T23:13:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beagle \* > \*\ ***Tejota** There is a [strategic petroleum reserve](http://ug-sprtech.sandia.gov/). Of course mid air refueling takes care of many logistical problems. I do not think the US would be facing the dire situation faced by the Afrika Corps. The strategic petroleum reserve would certainly help. But tapping it would be an overtly political act that Bush may not be willing to risk. One day we may NEED that reserve to defend our country, if he were to use that now to go adventuring, that cost him. Also, it isn’t a gas tank, most of it is crude oil. and it certainly isn’t anywhere near where it will be needed. > [@](#): > > Of course mid air refueling takes care of many logistical problems. Riight :rolleyes: On a small scale, maybe. Certainly it allows for limited sorties directly from the USA to anywhere else. But to run a whole **invasion** that way? You have no idea what you are talking about. In terms of total fuel cosumption, mid-air refueling makes the problem worse. Not to mention that we simply don’t have enough hardware to do it that way. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2002, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/30 "2002-07-20T19:02:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by London\_Calling \* > \*\* what else might give him a re-election boost \*\* I know this is true. Or at least conventional wisdom says it is. What I don’t understand is: why? Forget the rest of the world; exactly who is it here at home that is just so incredibly het up about Saddam that going after him (unprovoked, a distinctly un-American thing to do), is gonna be the thing that will guarantee their vote for George? With whom would such an action resonate, I wonder, aside from people who are already locked down tight for George to begin with? Who are these hoardes of fence-riders that would come down firmly on his side because of this, but just might vote for Gore otherwise? Is there a single example Doper among us who fits this description? Someone help me here, because it makes no sense to me… 😕 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2002, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/31 "2002-07-21T02:00:53Z")
**Beagle** said: > [@](#): > > Iraq was behind the 93 Trade Center bomb, according to the Frontline. Nothing was ever done about that. I can’t find anywhere in that Frontline article that says Iraq was behind the 93 bomb. They interview a (hawkish) journalist called Laurie Mylroie who _believes_ that Iraq were responsible. She thinks Iraq were behind the bomb because Ramzi Yousef (the guy who carried out the bombing) entered America using an Iraqi passport. And also because the Kuwaiti interior ministry had a file on him that had apparently been altered by the Iraqis when they invaded. This is the evidence against Iraq. It’s interesting to be sure but it’s not conclusive. Yousef fled the country after the bombing and was caught. But he fled to Pakistan, not Iraq. He’s now serving time in a US penitentiary and he’s never admitted to any Iraqi involvement. Also, apart from the two pieces of evidence mentioned above, there’s no other evidence that Iraq were involved. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2002, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/32 "2002-07-21T02:20:30Z")
As for the logistics of invasion, unless someone goes into specifics about exactly which countries are allies and which assets are deployed speculation is useless. You may be right about the 93 Trade Center bomb. I was simply pointing to potential justifications. Sabah Khodada - Iraqi Captain - from the Frontline: > [@](#): > > What kind of training went on, and who was being trained? > > Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism. > > … > > Non-Iraqis were trained separately from us. There were strict orders not to meet with them and not to talk to them. And even when they conduct their training, their training has to occur at times different from the times when we, the Iraqis, conduct our own training. > > So you were training Iraqis, Saddam’s fedayeen [Saddam’s Fighters], members of the militia in Iraq. And someone else, other groups, were training the non-Iraqis? > > They were special trainers or teachers from the Iraqi intelligence and al-Mukhabarat. And those same trainers or teachers will train the fedayeen, the Iraqi fedayeen, and also the same group of those teachers will train the non-Iraqis, foreigners who are in the camp. … > > And the foreign nationals, the Arabs who are there, but who are not Iraqis – what were they like? Were they Egyptians, Saudis? Do you know where they came from? > > They look like they’re mostly from the Gulf, sometimes from areas close to Yemen, from their dark skin and short bodies. And they also are Muslims. … > > … > > And the training also included how to prepare for suicidal operations. For example, they will train them how to belt themselves around with explosives, and jump in a place and explode themselves out as part of the suicidal training. I think the training of the Arabs was much harsher, and much stricter, than the training of the Iraqis. > > Why? > > Because we know that Arabs, non-Iraqis who come to train in these kind of camps, are going to be sent to very dangerous and important operations outside Iraq; not inside Iraq. … > > They trained people to hijack airplanes? > > Yes. > > For what purpose? > > … It has been said openly in the media and even to us, from the highest command, that the purpose of establishing Saddam’s Fighters is to attack American targets and American interests. This is known. There’s no doubt about it. > > All this training is directed towards attacking American targets, and American interests. The training does not only include hijacking of planes and sabotage. … Some other people were trained to do parachuting. Some other areas were training on how to penetrate enemy lines and get information from behind enemy lines. But it’s all for the general concept of hitting and attacking American targets and American interests. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2002, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/33 "2002-07-21T02:46:34Z")
I hope it is clear that I respect all the allied nations for their support during the Gulf War. I said that the US might have been able to pull of the Gulf War with “less” allied support precisely because there was so _much_ allied support. The UK flew a number of dangerous attack sorties to just name one nation. The list provided earlier shows just why what ifs are so difficult. There were quite a few nations in the original coalition. I think if all the oil producing countries cut off production that the US might react a number of different ways. However, absent some proof that this is likely to happen, this thread should not be limited by that consideration. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2002, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/34 "2002-07-23T00:03:32Z")
Wow, I go away for the weekend, and return to find my post dragged into another thread, and myself systematically bludgeoned with the flame-stick. It’s unfortunate that people would choose to attack me, rather than simply attack my argument, but if that’s the kind of game we play here, I can dig it. Hmm, so much to cover… where shall I start? I guess I’ll go in my favorite order, “No Particular”: Necessity of allied support in the war on Iraq: You’ll note I never said we could cavalierly beat the tar out of Iraq single handedly. I said we could do it reasonably with the help of a few key partners, or we could do it entirely alone, but would probably not, because of the casualties involved. Does anybody really not believe that if we pooled all our resources, we could not win a war against Iraq, even without help? C’mon, our military power is an order of magnitude or two beyond theirs. We have more super carriers than the rest of the world combined. It would be messy, but we _could_ do it, especially given all the anti-Saddam sentiment in Iraq. General anti-Europe sentiment: I’m not a big fan of Europe. I don’t mind Europeans, but Europe, in general, bugs me. They (entering gross generaization mode) perceive Americans as gun-toting ignorant philistines who have no regard for anyone other than themselves. They are largely socialistic and opposed to personal freedom in general. They love to micromanage, and frown upon those who don’t. They have an innate love of tyrants like Castro and Arafat, while painting Bush as a terrorist. Many parts of Europe are blatantly anti-Semitic. When Palestinians send suicide bombers to slaughter children, the European press calls them “freedom fighters”. When Israel launches an attack against military encampments that train suicide bombers, they are called “terrorists”. The best-selling book in France was, for awhile, about how the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by the CIA because they wanted to go to war against Afghanistan, for crying out loud. The only country that ever really supports us consistently is the UK, which is why they escape the brunt of my ire. (gross generalization mode off) US support to the UN: As pointed out by London\_Calling, the US, as of 1995, gave about as much as the top 3 European nations combined. Now, somewhat less. Doesn’t this qualify as a lot of money? Do you not think the UN would prefer to keep this money? How about the military support that the US donates? You think they wouldn’t mind us yanking all that support, too? They seemed awfully attached to that support when we threatened to yank it over the whole ICC matter. Now, most of the above is rather off-topic, but I figured I would respond. I’ve tried to keep it civil here, so please, no more comments to the tune of calling me an idiot and condescendingly suggesting that I may learn something if only I pay close attention to the brilliance that permeates this message board. I have better things to do with my time than be insulted. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2002, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/35 "2002-07-23T02:04:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sparc \* > \*\*… > > Disregardful of ElJeffe’s thoughts on the rest of the world there are quite a few nations who martially speaking could. Such as: > > France, yes you idiot France who have nukes and in view of her size a rather disproportionate military machine > The UK > China > Russia > India > > That is only to mention the absolutely most patently obvious ones. For crying out loud; with the state that Iraq is in, Austria could probably attack her and win. > > … \*\* Not to nitpick, but… _Maybe_ France could go it alone against Iraq. (Assuming the De Gaul doesn’t suffer another major glitch). Shipping would be real tight for them, though. They have great mobile forces, just not the mobility to move them (much). Gotta love the _Force de Frappe’_, which is what I believe they used to call their nuclear forces. Heh, frappe’. Britian? Not anymore. Not enough sea- and air-lift to get and maintain enough troops in Iraq. Russia? Not a chance. Russia is running low on things like 152mm HE rounds, much less the ‘good stuff’. Chechnya just won’t go away… China? Less of a chance then Russia. No sealift to speak of, no strategic airlift, no naval aviation to speak of. Maybe in a decade or two, though. India? Nice navy, but little strategic projection capability. Not enough resupply ships and whatnot. Dunno about their troop projection capability. I’ll have to read up about India… ---
**Author:** ![Sparc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Sparc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparc)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2002, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/36 "2002-07-23T02:39:18Z")
Brutus… You’re addressing posts that have been retracted from the debate at hand. Why don’t you just stick to the thread. I think that it should be pretty obvious to even a slow reader that my rhetoric was not an attempt to enter into a debate as regards the potential strike force of said nations, but that my intent was to address other idiocy by point of equally tenuous positions. While I am addressing you I might point out that the e in ‘frappe’ is silent and in this case not to be confused with the American ice coffee variety where the e carries emphasis. Force de Frappe litterally means ‘strike force’. Carry on, (as before without me, if you would be so kind) Sparc ---
**Author:** ![Sparc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Sparc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparc)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2002, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/37 "2002-07-23T03:03:57Z")
Oh and ElJeffe, Since I feel a certain responsibility for having misled you as regards the level of the debate in here: I think you might want to scroll up and note that I did apologize to the readership as regards the attack I made on you, since the rules of the boards does not permit me to do so in here. In case the wording of my apology was not to be understood I’ll reiterate; had I realized that I was in the Great Debates forum I would not have insulted ElJeffe as I did. You, like I did not in my previous reply to you might want to check yourself a little before you post unfounded opinion in this specific forum, especially when it is inflammatory, there is another forum called the BBQ Pit where you can play those games, if you feel like flaming the EU do it there, so that we, the citizens of this place you so dislike, and more sensible members get a fair chance to reply in a way the bitter bile you regurgitate on us deserves (that is if anyone has the energy, I just spent what I had, so it wont be me). Now truly! Please carry on without me. Sparc ---
**Author:** ![FIREMAN44](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@FIREMAN44](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FIREMAN44)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2002, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/38 "2002-07-23T03:33:42Z")
Back to the OP; I believe that when and if anything tangible is discovered tying Iraq/Saddam to the 9-11 attacks, the gloves will come off and most of the Gulf War coalition will be on board one way or the other. I would bet that every agency available is pouring over records of all communication coming into or out of Iraq in the last few years, looking for that link that would justify the toppling of Saddam. ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2002, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/39 "2002-07-23T12:36:47Z")
The problem with attacking Iraq is that the US will not get the same support they had last time. Certainly overtly at least, it will not get support from Saudi. It is highly unlikely to get support from Syria. It will definitely not get support from Iran. Given that Jordan currently depends on Iraqi oil, it would not get support from Jordan. Only Kuwait would help it in terms of a land-based attack. This means that essentially it would have to be a sea-based attack. While this is possible (as military experts have assured me) it won’t be as straightforward as having the land presence around Iraq that they had last time. The other issue is that bombing the hell out of a country is one thing, going in on the ground with a land invasion is quite another. In addition to this, the Iraqi people - however oppressed they may be perceived as - are not going to be welcoming to a load of US troops that they have already (been taught at least to) perceive as causing them severe hardship over the last decade. In addition to this: what the world really needs is a rehabilitated Iraq. Baghdad used to be a major international trade centre, a leading city of the Middle East, on a par with Beirut, Cairo, etc. Iraq has a huge amount of oil, it and neighbouring countries are desperate for the sanctions to end, so they and it can at least return to some sort of normalcy with trade relations and foreign policy. Continued sanctions, continued forced ostracism of Iraq, continued mutterings of military action, and certainly actual military action, will NOT rehabilitate Iraq or help its people in the short-to-medium term, or necessarily the long-term. A central issue is Iraq’s possession of WMDs. As a senior source recently put it to me: “The last thing we want is Iraq lobbing a WMD into Tel Aviv.” Fair enough. I am hugely uneasy that certain countries - if not all countries - possess WMDs. But I also feel that as independent sovereign nations, they have as much right to as any other country. Look at it this way from Iraq (or any other “rogue” nation’s perspective) - why should the US, the UK, Russia, European nations, be allowed to possess huge nuclear stockpiles, WMDs, armaments, but not them? Why should they be forced to abstain from something bigger nations do, just because those bigger nations say so? Sanctions are one thing: if you don’t like a country’s policies, don’t trade with them. But invading them because they own something that you don’t agree with - particularly when you own those things yourself - that’s hypocrisy. Only if there is a serious, realistic likelihood that another nation is about to aggressively use those things to harm another nation is military action really justfied, IMO. And is this realistically speaking the case with Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2002, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010/40 "2002-07-23T14:10:55Z")
Come on, nobody here is saying in an all out war between the US and Irak the US would not come out on top. That is not the point. The point is whether the US would piss off its allies and go to war with Irak in the face of world opposition. _CAN_ it do it? Yes, of course it can. But why would the US do something so stupid? The price to pay would be huge. The monetary cost would be huge. The cost in bad relations would be huge. It is not in the interests of the US and it makes no sense. The US is _not_ going to attack Irak unless it can first gather enough international support which it does not have right now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attack-iraq/119010.md?page=3)