What would satisfy you to support a war on Iraq?

Obviously there are be some poeple who think that there is no justification to any military conflict and there are poeple who think there is already enuf justification available.

To those who are sitting on the fence, what would have to be said and/or done to convince you to support military action on Iraq? If you were part of the UN, what would the US have to show to make you support their view.

I’m not sure what would, absent aggressive action against us or another sovereign state.

So, any horror that Saddam subjects his people to is OK, as long as he doesn’t invade another country?

We are talking hypothetical questions here.

My preference would be to not interfere with another country’s internal matters. Even if they appear inconsistent with our perception of essential rights and liberties.

Of course, there would be exceptions. As you may recall from another thread, I would have supported intervention in Rwanda. Which was an exceptional case of apparent genocide, on a massive scale.

I am not aware of similar situations in Iraq. If you have information I lack, please fill me in. I know one poster provided his personal anecdotal experiences. But what has been going on recently - as opposed to the past decade(s) - that merits intervention NOW?

I think that military action to prevent another country’s internal “suppression of minorities” is a dangerous precedent. Should we take on Russia? China? What if Canada disapproves of how America treats blacks?

And if we WERE to adopt such a role as the worldwide defender of the oppressed, I would like us to apply it consistently, rather than simply towards nations that have resources we covet.

Personally, I greatly support economic and developmental aide to influence other nations, over providing weapons or US military action.


You’ve captured my own view perfectly. I agree 100% with what you have said above.

To those of you who think we are taking pre-emptive actions against terrorism, ask yourelf: Are we more or less likely to see terrorist attacks against the US if we invade Iraq?

I think we are likely to see more terrorist attacks if we actually invade Iraq.

Hell, look at the Kuwaitis. Man, we got their fraggin’ COUNTRY back for them, barely ten years ago, and now we’re hearing about loonies there who sneak up and shoot at Americans because they don’t want us there…

It’s like the KKK marches. True, the KKK is nearly a total joke of an organization, and the FBI watches 'em like a hawk… but when they march, you can count on the black folks to turn out in force and scream and holler and throw shit at them.

…and some idiot cracker in the audience sees all this, and decides to join the KKK. Every time some idiot in a pointy hood goes down with a (perhaps well-deserved) brick upside his head, that’s good for another five idiot white cracker recruits, right there. Seen it happen.

…and nowadays, the KKK is a joke… but the splinter organizations, the SERIOUS Nazi Wackos… aren’t funny at all.

…and the KKK is where they do their best recruiting.

…and now, on to Iraq. True, Saddam Hussein is an asshole. True, even the other Gulf leaders don’t like him much. True, he deserves a foot upside the butt as much as any politician ever did… but if WE of all people go in there and turn the bastard out, it will be just like the KKK, folks. A whole generation of moderate Arab teenagers who might have otherwise seen some sense… will suddenly develop idiot cracker redneck accents and join the KKK.

Well, Hamas, actually, or Al-Qaida, but it amounts to the same thing…

Here’s a laundrey list of complaints:

Id like to see a stronger stance toward North Korea.

Id like to know why we should trade in a repressive secular government for a most likely repressive who-knows-what government.

Id like to see the people with well established anti-American terrorist intenions (ie some Saudis) brought to justice first. The Hussein-Al Queda connection is weak and almost laughable.

Id like another president in power to do the job, somebody who doesnt have a daddy once directly involved.

Id like to be assured that the draft wont be reinstated. Dieing for what you believe in is better than killing for what you dont.

Id like the US public, government, and corporations to reconsider the sources of our energy so that oil isnt #1.

Id like US society to reconsider its inneficient use of energy.

Id like more of a consensus from other powers around the world.

Id like the proof that the US govt has to be made public. I have yet to see a case.

Oh and while Im at it, Id like the male-female ratio to be tipped to about 10% to 90% :slight_smile:


Footage of Sadaam giving Osama the Secret Handshake of the Water Buffalos.

Granted, but how is this relevant to Iraq?

At the very least, we would trade in Saddam for someone just as mean, who’s loyal to us for the time being. It’ll at least buy us time. And I think it’s highly unlikely that we’d have to settle for this. Our plans are to institute democracy, even if only gradually.

Forceable regime change in Iraq will give us more leverage with the governments of the surrounding nations. The people may not like us, and we may even see a short-term rise in al Qaeda recruitment (though I’m skeptical), but instituting democracy in Iraq is a first step towards democracizing (is that a word?) the entire region.

Why? Even if war is perfectly justified, you’d rather wait until someone else is in power, because you have a personal beef against Bush? Or did you mean something less asinine than what I interpreted?

I hereby assure you that it won’t. If it does, I will eat my hat. Nobody on either the left or the right would seriously propose this. The few on the left who have proposed have done so only to try to scare the public into opposing the war. A pretty crappy tactic, I might add.

Fair enough, but this is A.) a long term goal, and not one that can be realized any time soon, and B.) irrelevent to the case of Iraq. Unless you’re one of those “No War For Oil” people?

Fine, but again - irrelevent.

If war is the morally correct thing to do, does it become less morally correct because France is afraid of losing money on its Iraqi oil contracts? Because Russia is afraid of the same? Because China (China! the ones who imprison people for worshipping without a license!), Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia! the ones who fund terrorism!), Iran (who desperately fears having a democracy this close to home, giving its already-agitated people unpleasant ideas about things like “freedom”) and others like them question the morality of it? Can you name some countries who you would like to have the support of, and why you feel their support is important?

I would like that, too. I predict the case will be made right before Bush announces his intention to go to war.

Well, there was that little matter of using nerve gas on Kurds. The “invasion” as the outside world calls it was called annexation by Iraq. Saddam believed that the Kuwaitis didnt deserve their oil and was in fact Iraqs to begin with so they were willing to kill and/or eject a whole nation for that belief. That war on Iran was an overt attempt to limit the Shiites from gaining any kind of influence. Did i miss anything?

For me to fully support a military action on Iraq would require some verifiable proof that Iraq has nuclear bomb capabilities. Nerve gass and bio-toxins are secondary but if the US showed some proof like satelite photos, captured munitions, radiation spectrometer imagery of nuclear fuel being smuggled in, a breeder reactor being constructed or a mixed uranium-plutonium fuel production plant, it would go a long way in this heresay war. It seems by the way the US administration is talking, they allude to having this kind of proof. The method by which this “proof” is obtained might be more important than the need of the people to know at this point but sooner or later, this proof must be revealed.

Having nucear bomb capabilities would imply then that the US needs to invade Taiwan, Japan, N. and S. Korea, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, S. Africa, Israel, ad nausem. Need a higher standard than that.

I understand that given national security constraints, maybe it is not possible to make the case or present “proof” to a closed session of congress or in the US press. But goddamn if Bush can’t persuade a “reasonable” quorum among the British, French, Germans, Chinese and Russians that imperative military action is required to neutralize a threat that has the capability and intention to be projected offensively outside of Iraq’s borders, then I am not convinced.

Sure all of the above countries have their own axes to grind, but the green light from at least half of them would put me on the side of something has to be done rather than there’s an out of control lunatic in the White House

*Originally posted by ElJeffe *
**Granted, but how is this relevant to Iraq?
north korea and iraq are doing similar things right now

possible development of weapons of mass destruction/ nuclear weapons,
massive oppresion,
belligerence towards neighboring countries,
turning out of weapons inspectors,
tyrannical leadership

and yet bush seems to want a peaceful resolution with north korea while supporting military action with iraq. whY?

i personally would like to see much more support from the government and businesses in making our country less dependent on oil, seeing as we dont really get along with the countries on whom we depend for oil. also, you know, the environment.

The world is full of bullies. The Bush administration is no less a bully. It is no different excpt that it has a bigger stick.

Any Dick can whack a Stick, and history says that those with big sticks usually do.

Shylock, you have your pound of flesh, as per BBC doco on U.S. Special Forces implicated in Taliban massacre … or simply that hundreds and thousands of non-Western people die each month through lack of resources which is controlled by Western interests. Greed and lack of social justice is the genesis for terror in the North. Hasn’t this always been so?

Nothing would satisfy for the U.S. to go to war with anyone.

Instead, try patient dialogue as a first step … maybe another step is social justice … that’s a hard one to pull, afterall world is full of bullies!

Perception is that Shylock wants to control the world. That’s probably an accurate enough perception.

Shylock can’t solve the world’s problems, by claiming his pound of flesh, he only likes to think he does … he only solves for himself in the immediate term.

There would be no need for invasions to any of these countries you listed.

First of all, these countries allow inspectors in willingly. Up until recently that included N. Korea. China and Russia are established nuclear powers are India and Pakistan and they dont try to hide that fact.

Second. Iraq is violating the terms of its surrender. There was no statue of limitations to compliance of a surrender. Saddam is the same leader that agreed to the terms of surrender and is the same leader choosing to ignore it. Proof of that is enuf to justify military action.

I dont know what the deal is with France (and I’ll bite my tongue on my opinion to that account) But Russia and China stand to gain opportunities with any nation that dislikes the US. German is led by a chancellor on a peace platform. If you look closely at what these nations are saying, none of them say no war with Iraq. All of them are saying No war on Iraq now, maybe later.

Heres where the intrigue is. Why IS the US pushing for immediate military action? What do the Bush people know that they are not sharing with France, Germany, Russia and China (note that group) but have thoroughly convinced England of and have at least hinted at with Saudi Arabia and Turkey?

It’s relevant because it shows inconsistancies on our dealings with similar situations. Its like giving Charles Manson a 30 year jail sentence fine and turning to give a one-time murderer life in prison. It is not consistant. We only pick on Iraq because Iraq is fairly diplomatically isolated.

By the same logic, the Britain should have conquered France to gain control over Hitler… And the point is moot anyway. Do we really want to become the dominant power in the middle east? Troops in Afghanistan, troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. Two nations under our belt. And you dont just go about instituting democracies. You just announce “hey, you guys are free” and they go “yay, lets start a democracy!” It takes time and patience. It takes establishing to the people that you can openly criticize government without fear of reprisal. Its like an abused child. You dont just remove him from the environment, he needs to learn to trust again, needs to learn that he can find security with ease in another relationship.

I was going to stay out of this thread, but, when I saw the following comment, I just couldn’t help myself:

WTF? You said something like this in another post, I answered, and you never returned, that I can see. Where do you get this scenario? What do you know that we don’t? Since I know you won’t find a cite anywhere to back up this unbelievably asinine stance, I can tell you from 12 years of studying the history and culture of the region, working here with the various militaries and governments (to include the US, by whom I am currently employed), and living among these people, that you are so far off-base that you could be considered in the parking lot.

  1. What leverage, and with who? Is this the “Arabs/Muslims only understand force” school of thought? Give some examples of just what kind of leverage you are meaning, and what the outcome might be; for instance, where is this going to make it easier for us to deal with Iran, Saudi, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Turkey, or even freaking Afghanistan? This I have to see…

  2. So you think we might piss some of them off? Amazing bit of insight; but you think they will get over it pretty quick? And this won’t radicalize anyone, or, if it does, only in the short term? And where is the basis for this little gem? You say you are skeptical, so you must have some information my colleagues and I don’t; this I would love to hear.

  3. Democratization of the region: so you think we need to export this great American institution to everyone, I see. What about self-determination? Or is this the “bomb them into the Stone Age, and we’ll remake them in our image” plan?

I really don’t mean any offense, and I don’t ask everyone to hold a doctorate in Middle East history and culture; but, this is the SDMB, and the idea is to “stamp out ignorance,” not promote it. At least read and get some idea of the matters at hand before wading into the fray, machine-gunning us with these little bullets of unsupported conjecture.

Thanks, and waiting for the response.


And X, a couple of mistakes there:

First of all, both India and Pakistan hid their weapons prgrams initially; it was a surprise to everyone (us included) that they had managed to cobble together nukes. And we weren’t happy about it - remember the sanctions we imposed on Pakistan before the 9/11-we-need-local-help-you’re-our-friends-now thing happened? We were talking pretty tough, though you are right about one thing: invasion has never been an option for any other nuke upstart, with the exception of Iraq.

As for your justification of military action: once again, not our call, but the actual signatory to the ceasefire (UNSCR 687) must make the decision to use force. Again, no basis for unilateral action, regardless of what your opinion of the agreements validity is.

Russia and China also stand to gain “opportunities” with those that are our friends; the people that don’t “like us” don’t economically present the opportunities that the people that do like us present. For those same economic reasons, France and Germany are not interested at this time, and in this way; in addition, they have majorities of their populations that are against war, as well.

“Thoroughly convinced England”? Try again: maybe “thoroughly convinced” Blair, but not the entire UK; majority is not convinced at all. As for Saudi and Turkey: who is trying so hard to find another path? Weren’t the Saudis the ones who came up with the exile plan? Aren’t they the ones saying that, no matter what, give the Arabs a chance to settle this before it comes to war? They haven’t been convinced of anything, other than that they really have no choice but to back us, at some level; that has everything to do with the politics of the region, and nothing at all to do with any secrets that the administration is hiding. And Turkey? All you need to hear is Kurds, and you know why Turkey will play along, though as little as possible; just like in Saudi, the majority of the population is against war. However, the Turkish government will not let the Kurds get the chance to get an upperhand, or any kind of autonomy. Most likely, the administration has bribed them with a big aid package, and allowed them the chance to have a say on the Kurdish self-determination and make-up in any future government.

Once again, no secrets are needed… Just an understanding of the region.

A U.N. resolution permitting the U.S. to make war, kill Saddam, and install a new democratic gov’t. would get my (grudging) respect.

My main problem is solvency. The pro-war side hasn’t given any credible evidence, IMO, that a post-Saddam Iraq would be the sort of Iraq we’d “like”. And by like, I don’t necessarily mean pro-Western or pro-U.S. I’ve heard no arguments making the case that the administration has the plan to do what the U.S. did in post-war Germany or Japan. Nor do I see any evidence that the American people have the guts and the wherewithall to commit.

Look at the troubles the Israelis get when they go on one of their rampages in Palestine. While we don’t share a border with Iraq, Iraq hasn’t been under the thumb of an extremely oppressive occupation either. Iraqis probably will have more access to guns and explosives to make any urban war very nasty and any occupation very painful. Iraqis may hate Saddam, but that doesn’t mean that they’ll want an occupying force living in country for years and if we don’t occupy, why should we assume a nice friendly constitutional democracy will obtain?

Seriously? I don’t know. On the one hand Saddam is an evil piece of shit. On the other hand I, as a non-U.S. U.N. member, would oppose toppling him for the same reason that I, as an American, defend the free speech of neo-nazis. Once they’re oppressed it makes it easier to move to the next. If I were a non-American, I would be concerned that giving the U.S. the go-ahead in Iraq might weaken my nation’s soverign (sp?) rights in the future. I would be too afraid of a slippery-slope. Look at all the Americans who already want purely internal labor and environmental issues to be mandated according to the wishes of Americans in trade treaties. I would probably insist on Iraq starting another war, or a Kurdish holocoust, or something similarly nasty before I’d green light the U.S.

That was then, this is now. Which of these nuclear upstarts have invaded their neighbors, ignored UN calls to withdraw, fought a coalition of nations and lost? In the present, are any of these nations (besides N.Korea) denying access to UN nuclear inspectors?

So are you saying that if the US has undeniable proof of Iraq’s violation of the ceasefire agreement and UN resolutions It is not the US’s call to act if the UN fails to act? Isnt that what the League of Nations did more than 60 years ago?

well, thats the whole point of this thread, isnt it? What would it take to convince you that immediate military action is necesary?

A few less lies would go a long way, in my estimation. For instance, it has been revealed that the whole chunk of crapola about the dreaded Aluminum Tubes had about as much substance as the Smuggled Turkish Uranium. See below:


I might be persuaded to war. I will not be bullshitted to war!