Can someone please enlighten me on how mr Hussein is planning on actually transporting his supposed A-bomb to NYC, and why he didn’t choose a more surprising target?
Boxcar, if you’re seriously comparing the global impact of WWII Germany with 2002 Iraq, then all debate is futile, I’m afraid.
Well put.
Not “well put” at all. If you (World Eater) and Cheesestake want a little piece of Sadsam I suggest you join the military. Perhaps you can take my Husband’s place in the Marine Corps. After all he’s only been in for 17 years, and there is no way that I will allow him to go to Iraq to raise the approval rating of a President who not only has personal issues with the leaders of several sovereign nations, but believes that war is good for the approval ratings.
IMHO
I simply agreed with that statement. Please scroll up to where I said I think its a bad idea.
There are some points that I agree with made for the opposite though.
Let’s follow the logic here:
We fought Saddam the first time over territory, not him. He didn’t use his WMDs because he knew damn well we’d nuke him, and he probably doesn’t want to die anymore than any other human being.
This time we’re going in with the express purpose of capturing or killing him. So why WOULDN’T he use WMDs and take as many Americans as he could down with him?
Coldfire
Take out “German” and insert “Arab”, “Persian”, “Islamic”, or “Saudi Arabian”. Take out “Nazis”, insert “Islamofascists” (or whatever the vogue term is now). The sentiment is the same.
This is probably more a great debate, but I think several parallels (is that spelled right? I wish there was a spellcheck on here) could be drawn between Hitler and Saddam.
I think Saddam 2002 is a greater danger than Hitler 1941. Hitler had shown great reluctance to use gas on the battlefield (Saddam has used it on the Kurds and the Iranians). Beyond U-boat attacks, Hitler 1941 had little to no capacity to strike the US. Iraq easily could and, I believe, has through deniable ie terrorist, means.
But debate is probably futile which is why this question is in IMHO instead of Great Debates.
I think the US has every right to take whatever action is neccessary for its self-defense. We have been at war since at least the capture of the US embassy in Tehran and the hostilities are being perpetrated by terrorist organizations which receive encouragement, backing, and intelligence from several nation-states. Among these are the governments of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia (where, lest we forget, almost all of the hijackers and the money for the Trade Center attack came from).
I don’t believe we can negotiate with these people. I believe the only thing they will understand, and the only thing that will work to secure any sort of peace, is the massive and overwhelming use of force to destroy their outmoded, stagnant, oppressive, corrupt, and useless governments.
To borrow from Heinlein, those who think force never solved anything obviously haven’t studied WW2 closely enough.
I don’t want my country to be harmed any more than anyone else here but if the sole criteria for declaring war on another country is the presence of WoMD, (which Iraq has NOT been proven to even have) then we will have to declare war on most of the world. The Soviet Union had weapons of mass destruction for decades… were you advocating we go over there and attack the USSR in decades past? It’s a good thing we didn’t, since we didn’t have the foresight to see that the USSR would come around on it’s own. Please note: the Russian President was the FIRST world leader to officially offer his support to the U.S. after the 7/11 attacks.
Has the U.S. EVER had any success in ousting a regime in a far-away land? If we oust a regime, we have to stay to make sure it stays ousted. Look at Afganistan. To how many America-hating foreign nations do we want to send our soldiers? I have too many friends serving in the armed forces to agree that we should throw them over there in harm’s way unless it is for a damn good reason!
The most important battle we have to wage is the battle against global terrorism. In doing so we need the cooperative united effort with every possible nation on this planet. Like it or not, the U.S. NEEDS the assistance of the rest of the world to accomplish this.
But hey… if proof comes out that Iraq does indeed have WoMD and has them aimed at the U.S., I agree: let’s take him out and hope for the best. The problem is, we don’t have proof that they have anything of the sort.
You misspelled “oil”.
Boxcar, with all due respect, you seem to have missed an important part when I said: Boxcar, if you’re seriously comparing the global impact of WWII Germany with 2002 Iraq, then all debate is futile, I’m afraid.
Yes, Iraq is a more viable thread to the US -at least on US soil- than Nazi Germany ever was: the world is a smaller place these days. But Iraq and the US are not the only two nations in the world, and the impact of 2002 Iraq on the planet as a whole is negligable compared to the impact Nazi Germany made. To state otherwise would require actual proof, for example evidence that Iraq DOES have weapons of mass destruction. So far, no compelling evidence seems to be forthcoming. Hence, the whole thing reeks of spin.
The thing that really bothers me is: evidence is unavailable because Saddam kicked out the required inspectors. At one point the UN claimed they needed inspectors to assure Saddam didn’t develop WMD. Now, the inspectors are gone 4 years, but the UN claims “Saddam doesn’t have any” and “There is no evidence.” If they needed inspectors to get evidence, and there are no inspectors, how can they be sure?
Does everybody really think he kicked out the weapons inspectors so he could more easily develop medicines and tractor parts?
I kind of get the feeling we’re all watching a global session of good cop-bad cop. The U.S. is standing in the corner holding the bat while the U.N. is saying, “Just let the inspectors back in and I might be able to keep him off you”.
As for whether we should or not, that depends entirely on the evidence, which no one, as of yet, has decided to share with me, so I don’t know.
For all you SD’ers that say we shouldn’t invade Iraq, What if we ‘escort’ the UN inspectors in to the Iraq waepons plants so they can inspect. By ‘escort’ I mean enfore the treaty Iraq signed by whatever means needed using all available force needed.
Yes, being a part of the U.N., the U.S. needs to be a part, even a significant part, of the weapons inspection. It just needs to be muti-lateral. Moreover, I think it would be preferrable for the U.N. to arrive unannounced (if that can be done), to give Saddam less an opportunity to “hide” anything.
If there are indeed weapons manufacturing facilities that are in violation*, there needs to be corroborating testimony from other nations, so that Saddam can’t say that it’s just the U.S. picking on him.
K2dave, I think this is a bit unrealistic. For starters, what you wind up doing is approaching the Iraq border with 50,000 armored US troops with a gaggle of UN inspectors behind them and saying, “We’re coming in so these guys can inspect. Move.” I think you’re going to start a war this way. Better, IMO, to go in and clear the area before inviting the inspectors in.
Also, I’m so not a fan of the inspection thing. How much time has Saddam had to hide things (warheads, nuc/chem/bio facilities) he doesn’t want us to find? He’s had a few years now (a decade, really) and I have no doubt in my mind that he’s taken advantage of it. The bottom line is that I think once the inspectors pull out having done their job and getting rid of all the bad stuff they could find, the US will still consider Saddam to be a WMD threat. The regime needs to go, one way or another.
Hey you!, a good transcript of UN Resolution 687 can be found here.
If and when a US led ‘coalition’ takes Iraqi territory because it is deemed to be a threat to the US(mainly). then it will be less easy for the west to make noises when China invades Taiwan.(but of course this could never happen, differant cirumstances, investments tied in and all that stuff, could it ?)
…or maybe Russia finds a reason to invade some of those breakaway states such as Georgia etc, after all they are doing this in Chechnya for reasons that are not far removed from those the US is using to possibly justify its own position.
Although law cannot be absolute and inflexible, the US risks making other conflicts more likely in other regions by those who will manufacture similar scenarios using propaganda and covert methods.
In the final analysis, what threat is Hussain to the US, any real mass killing will just result in Iraq being turned into glass, I just do not see a position where Iraq really can threaten the US with impunity, that would simply be signing his own death warrant.
So what would be most likely would be a stand-off if Iraq were to actually have nuclear devices.
No-one, not even Saddam Husain lives forever, the regime will crumble and fall, just like other tyrannies fall.
During the cold war noone really believed that Russia could implode in the way it did, and it was tyranny feeding on itself that pretty much did for it.
What you guys aren’t getting is that TV said Iraq is a huge threat to the U.S., so it must be true.
You gotta remember that SH (and a variety of other world dictators, tyrants, and dipshits) will do anything to answer this question at the end of every week:
“Am I still in power?”
If the answer is… “Well, maybe not”, he’s demonstrated that he has no qualms in exercising whatever tools he has available to make damned sure he can answer with a resounding “YES!” at the end of the next week.
Who knows what he’ll do. Fold? I doubt it. Retaliate with WMODs? Depends on how his buttons are pushed but, “yep” is probably the correct answer.
The other dictators, tyrants and dipwads are simply jealous of the Limp-Dick Leader From Baghdad.
Smoke 'em all.
Whoa, there, Cheesesteak! I don’t think and didn’t mean to imply that it’s ‘OK’ for anyone to die! And what makes you think that only “Easterners” are targets? Do you think the U.S. just drops off into a void west of the Mississippi? Maybe no one in N.Y. is talking about any other place being targeted, but the rest of us out here in the wilderness have discussed it, let me assure you.
You are correct in asserting that the government is responsible for protecting it’s citizens (even Oregonians), but the sad fact is, it cant! Short of a pre-emptive strike, there’s nothing we can do if someone wants to detonate a nuclear device in say, downtown San Francisco.
And it’s NOT OK! The death and suffering of innocents is NEVER OK! Terrorist tactics like those carried out on 9/11 are cowardly and despicable.
All I’m saying is, the U.S. can’t act alone, unless we are given an obvious reason.
Coldfire wrote
I imagine we are looking at the first reason given in Gen Patton’s speech, the bit about German superman who think they are on a holy mission to take over the world. Lets see what we have there:
There are three reasons why we are fighting this war. The first is because we are determined to preserve our traditional liberties. No arguements here, I hope. I think we can all agree that Hitler, Saddam, and Osama would pretty much trample whatever rights and freedoms we enjoy in our respective countries should they find a way to seize power. Some crazy German bastards decided they were supermen and that it was their holy mission to rule the world. Wasn’t there just a meeting of Islamic clerics in London that pretty much declared that they should take whatever means necessary to institute the Shari’ah in England? Isn’t it boasted that Denmark will become the first European nation to institute the Shari’ah? Sounds like they figure everyone has to be like them, after all, their holy book is the correct one for all to follow. Or die. They’ve been pushing people around all over the world, looting, killing, and abusing millions of innocent men, women, and children. See any of the Middle-Eastern governments. Iraq just happens to be convenient. They were getting set to do the same thing to us. We had to fight to prevent being subjugated. See the above notes regarding England and Denmark. Does Shari’ah trump the US Constitution?
I think Saddam is a global threat. Hitler might have used whatever weapons were at his disposal, but, fortunately he never had access to nukes. OTH, he had chemical weapons and I can’t think of a single instance where he used them in battle, even against the Soviets.
Hitler never developed the means to strike at the continental US, a sign of global reach. Saddam, or associated terrorist organizations, has, twice. How much closer is Europe to the Middle-East then the US?
Saddam has used chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds. He has scud missles that could probably be rigged to deliver these gases throughout the Middle-East and, potentially, Europe. Do you doubt he would use them or give them to a terrorist to use?
How about eco-terrorism? Saddam set the oil wells of Kuwait on fire and opened pipelines to pollute the sea. Is that global enough? Does that demonstrate a willingness to kill maim and terrorize as much of the world as possible just to stay in power?
We, the western world, need to go in and beat the bejeezus out of some country on the merest suspician of terrorism and support for Islamic Radicals so as to teach the others a lesson and maybe encourage them to change their ways. Otherwise, we’ll do it for them.
Personally, I think Saddam is a good place to start because he is dumb enough to keep poking a stick at the US.
The Iraqi population seems ready for a change and is not wedded to Islamic Fundamentalism like other countries, say Saudi Arabia. I’d go in, occupy Iraq, and try to get a secular government in place modelled in the western theory of government. Not always the best, but a damn site better than what you find in that part of the world today.
I think, too, Coldfire, it can come down to this (and would have saved me writing the above) is Saddam Hussein going to become more or less dangerous to your interests as time passes. If the answer is more, how can you not agree to take him out today?
Damn, I opened this looking for a poll. Isn’t there another forum for this kind of thing? I wish a mod would drop by and fix this.
Anyway, my vote(?) is decidedly undecided. I think, as most sane people, that the weapons inspectors need to go back in. Why we haven’t brought them back through whatever means necessary in the last 4(?) years is beyond me. If SH doesn’t let us in, warn him that what we want to look at will be blown up. If he still doesn’t let us look, blow it up. Move on to the next location. Repeat as necessary.
I do not sit in the White House, I am not privy to what comes and goes there. I can’t quite make up my mind about what to do with Iraq. I do believe that there is a greater threat there than we realize. I had dinner the other night with a major in the US Army reserves that is currently on active duty and has been so since October. He’s been stationed here for 11 months now. His unit is from Conneticut. His unit has spent the last two weeks packing to return home. They can only keep the reserves active for two years and then they have to send them back home. His statement to me was that he asnd his unit will be back in 2 to 3 months, reactivated under a different mission name. I asked him if the US was going to bomb Iraq. He assured me that there is about a 95% chance that we are. The military is already aware of this, the only question is when not should or if. Over the course of this week I’ve asked other military people that I know, and it’s like it’s no secret that it’s going to happen. So I don’t feel that I’m passing on any sort of military confidence when the guys talk about it so openly with the public.
All I know is that I don’t want us to be caught again with our fingers up our butts like we did on 9/11. Whether we voted for Bush or any other candidate for President, Bush is the President and we need to stand behind him and support him. I have to believe and trust that he would not lead this country into a war without just cause that there is a threat to our country’s well-being. Whether Republican or Democrat, as an American I will not believe that the American people would vote a man into the office of President…and that man be shallow enough to take our country to war for his ‘image.’ I realize that I’m just a southern backwoods hick compared to most of the Dopers on this board as far as intelligence and world outlook, but somewhere along the lines, we gotta use some trust and support.