in my opinion i really don’t think we should go to war with Iraq. there is no proof of his involvment with terrorists or any such stuff. also if the united states thinks that this will raise the economy. it won’t. and if the U.S. thinks they will get oil from this they won’t because who the hell will give us oil if we keep using force on other countries to get our way. we are not the police of the world. we should worry about our selves before we worry about other countries and their problems.
Iraq’s gov’t is a danger to the world, and they have a lot of oil that we should take. Are any more reasons needed? We could have saddam’s regime toppled within 48 hours with absolutely zero american casualties.
48 hours is grotesquely optimistic. It could be done quickly, but not that quickly, nor could it be done painlessly. We’re quite capable, but not as capable as we were during Desert Storm, and without coalition support it might get ugly.
All that being said, I still think we need to do this.
Absolutely not, and I am actually horrified by the whole thing. Of all the actions Bush has taken and threatened to take, this is the only one that makes me ashamed and angry as an American citizen.
**Don’t vote for representation that will vote to allow him to do this. That’s how. This is not an example of a president with unencumbered power to do as he pleases. He was granted this power by duly elected representatives of the U.S. citizenry.
I believe that the human rights abuses alone in Iraq are reason enough to topple the regime. As human beings we have an obligation to halt that suffering. I also believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. That, too, is reason enough.
So you also think that every country that has human rights issues should be toppled aswell? Or is it just the ones that are floating on oil?
Yes, clearly the inference to be taken from my post is that oil is the key to my position, and that any “human rights issue” is enough to warrant regime change. Perhaps you can look up the term “straw man” before posting again.:rolleyes:
Bob, you got any idea how long that list is? The list of international human rights abusers, equal in tyranny to Goddam Hussein? Want to maybe think that over?
Many reasons exist as to why we should not carry out a pre-emptive strike upon Iraq, and I have yet to see a convincing argument for the converse.
True, Iraq has commited horrific war crimes, both during the Iran-Iraq war and later, against the Kurdish Iraqi minority.
True, Iraq most likely has stocks of chemical and biological weapons, and may be engaged in active development of nuclear weapons.
None of this significantly separates Iraq from many of its neighbours.
Both Iran and Syria have significantly larger stocks of chemical and/or biological weapons than Iraq , not to mention ballistic missiles.
The reasons usually presented for attacking Iraq are generally based upon the assumption that either Saddam Hussein will use WMD himself, or give them to terrorists.
While Iraq did use CW during the Iran-Iraq conflict, there is no reason to believe he would do so now, and every reason to believe the contrary.
Saddam is neither insane nor suicidal. He knows that if he uses WMD, the U.S. will be down on him like a tonne of bricks. And nor would he give (or sell) WMD to terrorists, for much the same reason.
The attempt to justify a war upon Iraq based upon humanitarian reasons is somewhat disingenuous. If we tried to depose every brutal, despotic regime we would be at it for centuries. Aside from that, the consequences of a war on Iraq would be horrific for the civilian population, and may even cause more deaths than Saddam has to date. It is a bitter irony that such war will undoubtedly be claimed as part of the War on Terror.
In short, a war upon Iraq is unjustified, myopic, and may well cause the deaths of up to 500,000 innocent civilians.
Such an atrocity should not and must not be contemplated.
-Oli
**No, I don’t. The OP asks for justification for war with Iraq, and I believe it exists. That does not in any way imply that I believe it is physically possible to eradicate human rights abuses from the face of the earth. But neither should we ignore it.
I believe the U.S. and the world has often shirked their responsibility to our fellow human beings for political reasons. That fact does not mean we should do so again. Combine the human rights abuses in Iraq with the danger from weapons of mass destruction and the political instability of the area, and it seems rather compelling. The invasion of Iraq, assuming they do not cooperate, is not at all a poor choice from where I’m sitting. My opinion.
And starman, there is a significant difference here. The sanctions against Iraq were the result of an unprovoked invasion and occupation of a neighboring country. Do you understand that there are not currently sanctions against Syria for these reasons? It’s similar to the reason why we’re not currently contemplating the invasion of France. Saddam has already refused to accept the consequences of his unprovoked warfare once. Why should we assume he will behave rationally? Why accept that risk from a man who has ALREADY used chemical warfare?
We should assume he will behave rationally because we have no reason to believe otherwise.
When Iraq used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, they knew that they were safe from massive retaliation by the US due to the Cold War politics prevalent at the time.
As to the gassing of the Kurds, same there. Saddam had no reason to believe he would suffer massive retaliation. Now he does.
And, furthermore, even if I did accept the proposition that Iraq would use CW unprovoked, why does that mean war?
I am sure there are very few who would disagree with Saddam’s removal from power, but at what cost?
Surely a more humane, rational, and ultimately successfull policy would be that of containment. It is not beyond the means of the United States, and there is no reason why it would not work.
-Oli
Unprovoked warfare. Now there’s a novel concept!
Why accept the risk of war in the Middle East from a country that has ALREADY used nukes…
(BTW, I’m not against toppling Saddam. It’s how it’s done that I’m questioning.)
You said
So if the HR abuses are alone enough to merit the war then other countries HR abuses should merit a war aswell, yes?
Since the US are not treating to going to war with a lot of countries I’m assuming there’s more to this than human rights abuses. Hey if it’s that important where was the world when Iraq where actually using those chemical weapons? Looking after their own interests that’s where and that’s what they’re doing now.
Human rights abuses my arse. Take the fucker out by all means but don’t fool yourself that there are nice clean reasons for this.
We are going to invade Iraq to have a stable oil supply. By doing this we can boycott Saudi Arabian oil. Thus strong-arming the Saudi government into getting rid of the terrorists in their own country or face overthrow because they don’t have the money to pay off their citizens. This is a better way of attacking the place where most of the real terrorists live. I thought this was common knowledge.
you know what i say to all this oil crap. one country who has TONS of it but can’t get to it because of lack of technology is Russia. maybe if we offered to help them get their oil they would give us some at a very low rate and we would not have to deal with the middle east. thats just one way i think this war could be avoided. and as for the human rights issue you would have to distroy almost all of asia to stop the human rights violations being commited.
You know, that really makes quite a bit of sense.
I don’t think we should go to war with Iraq. It’s what Bin Laden wants.
This is already taking place:
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/11/28112002162552.asp
http://www.austin360.com/aas/news/ap/ap_story.html/Intl/AP.V6026.AP-Russia-Oil-Pipe.html
…
BTW, don’t let anyone tell you any invasion of Iraq is about human rights abuses. HRA are only twigs on the fire. Strong-arming Iraq into a weaker position (whether through force or through mere threat of force) will lead to the consequences Beaten Man has alluded to above. In analyzng the current Iraq situation, people are not following the domino effect far enough down the line.
Sometme war is immoral. Sometime peace is.
We will have his war, and (as a professional soldier I think) we will win. When that happens CNN will show us some poor Iraqi slob who will say his mom was raped last week after his dad was killed. He will ask us why we waited so long to save him from Saddam.
I can’t think of a good answer.
Let’s go save those people.
Suppose Saddam does have nuclear weapons. We know he has chemical and probably biological weapons. At the moment he’s not going to nuke anyone or use other WMD because he is rightly scared of the international reaction, because he has a lot to lose.
Now suppose the US (and maybe allies) invade Iraq. It becomes clear that they (US) are going to win, and that Saddam will be captured, possibly killed. What incentive has Saddam not to use his WMD then?
He might think, well if i’m going down i’m going to make sure i hurt my enemies before i do. He could strike the neighbouring countries with chemical and biological agents, possibly nuclear weapons, killing millions of innocent people and throwing the world into chaos.
I’m not saying that will definately happen. But i think it is a strong possibility. Should we be taking that chance?