# Who's afraid of Iraq? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 28, 2003, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410 "2003-01-28T04:14:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2003, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/1 "2003-01-28T04:14:34Z")
Now that certain security council members have made it clear that they will veto any military action as yet, it looks as if the US will have to justify an attack on Iraq as “self-defense” rather than try to justify an attack based on violation of UN resolutions. I, for one, have not been convinced that Iraq presents an immediate and viable threat to the US. For one, we pretty much feel like we can bomb them whenever we feel it suits us. We wouldn’t do this if we were afraid of a genuine counterattack. Secondly any sane individual would acknowledge that the US has an overwhelming military superiority that’s makes any possible action by Iraq instantly suicidal. So, who is afraid of Iraq and why does Iraq pose a more legitimate threat than any other country? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Wrong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@Mr.Wrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Wrong)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2003, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/2 "2003-01-28T05:45:06Z")
Basically, I see it like this: Once a country has acquired nuclear weapons, our options for dealing with them become very limited(see North Korea). Short of nuclear annihilation, we’re pretty much stuck with distasteful negotiations as a means of dealing with a Rogue state in possesion of da bomb. So no, Iraq doesn’t really pose an immediate threat to our shores, but if Saddam is allowed to continue to develop WMD, he becomes much more difficult (if not impossible) to deal with. His ability to blackmail us becomes real. Dealing with Saddam now is a better option than dealing with him later, and I am convinced we must deal with him, one way or another, eventually. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2003, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/3 "2003-01-28T07:40:11Z")
GW, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft are a lot closer and a lot scarier to me. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2003, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/4 "2003-01-28T08:05:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Wrong \* > Dealing with Saddam now is a better option than dealing with him later, and I am convinced we must deal with him, one way or another, eventually. Deterring Saddam from obtaining nuclear weapons is important, but the mere fact that might possibly obtain a weapon does not qualify as self defense. Furthermore, nuclear weapons development is the shakiest and least supported of the US allegations. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/5 "2003-01-30T17:33:32Z")
Wow, I guess nobody really considers Iraq a threat to US security. In which case I would also venture we have no grounds for unilateral action. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/6 "2003-01-30T17:45:00Z")
I agree with **Mr. Wrong**. Saddam has a history of trying to acquire WMD and delivery systems. His likely targets, in order, are Israel and the United States. It is not unreasonable to think he might use terrorists as WMD delivery systems in the United States. It’s amazing that some people cannot work up any criticism of Saddam Hussein, but fulminate at GeeDubya. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/7 "2003-01-30T17:58:30Z")
So if Iraq can develop WMD with weapons inspectors present, what do you think Gadaffi can do with none present? Don’t we have other enemies in the world that currently aren’t operating under strict embargos? Why should Iraq take precedence? Furthermore, to go back to what Mr.Wrong said, why are negotiations more “distasteful” than war? ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/8 "2003-01-30T17:59:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* > \*\*Wow, I guess nobody really considers Iraq a threat to US security. In which case I would also venture we have no grounds for unilateral action. \*\* [I’ve posted this elsewhere (and it’s not a completely direct response to your concerns), but it’s worth posting here, too\*:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2915935#post2915935) What the UN inspectors find or don’t find has nothing to do with establishing a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. I don’t think there is an integral link at all between Saddam and Bin Laden themselves – but I feel there almost certainly is a tenuous one. I’m gathering that their are elements of Al-Qaeda going off and doing their own thing now and then … not necessarily defying Bin Laden, but remaining active even when Bin Laden is not issuing commands – taking advantage of downtime, if you will. The problem, it seems to, is this – chemical and biological weapons can exchange hands through these tenuous links, even when many degrees of separation are present. I can see where the Bush administration feels that Iraq is Al\_Qaeda’s (and others’) best ultimate source at getting their hands on WMD. Other nations the world over have these weapons, but do terrorists have as good a chance of obtaining them as they do from Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/9 "2003-01-30T17:59:39Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s amazing that some people cannot work up any criticism of Saddam Hussein, but fulminate at GeeDubya. It’s amazing to me that I keep seeing otherwise intelligent people attempt to equate disagreement over Bush’s inept actions regarding Saddam Hussein with lack of criticism for Saddam Hussein. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/10 "2003-01-30T18:01:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* > **So if Iraq can develop WMD with weapons inspectors present, what do you think Gadaffi can do with none present? Don’t we have other enemies in the world that currently aren’t operating under strict embargos? > Why should Iraq take precedence?** Do you think Gaddafi hasn’t been watched covertly over the past 15 years? If he pulled a Saddam, rest assured the U.S. would act to stop him. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/11 "2003-01-30T18:15:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bordelond \* > Do you think Gaddafi hasn’t been watched covertly over the past 15 years? > > If he pulled a Saddam, rest assured the U.S. would act to stop him. Uh-huh, just like covert intelligence was all over that crazy attempt to ram passenger planes into skyscrapers in New York and DC. What do you mean by “pulling a Saddam”? ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/12 "2003-01-30T18:24:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* > \*\*Uh-huh, just like covert intelligence was all over that crazy attempt to ram passenger planes into skyscrapers in New York and DC. \*\* That doesn’t follow. Gaddafi – a known past threat with a high public profile. Libya hosted many terrorist camps in the past. He’s raised attention to himself in the past, and thus has been watched closely for years. 9/11 - unknown, unanticipated threat carried out by apparently ordinary folks with no public profiles at all. ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/13 "2003-01-30T18:29:43Z")
“Pulling a Sddam” A) Pick a fight with next door neighbor to the point of bankrupcy just to stay in power. B) Lash out at anyone in your country for even thinking of reform. C) Annex a smaller neighbor to fix financial burdens. Burn it if you cant get it. D) Wag middle finger at the most powerful nation on earth who formed a coalition of your neighbors. E) Play shell game with UN weapons inspectors. Laugh out loud. F) Wink at the most powerful nation’s enemy just to get a reaction. Play innocent. G) Pick a fight with the local bully who is helped by the most powerful nation. Threaten the bully. Help its enemies. …take your choice or wait for a new one. Its bound to happen…soon. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/14 "2003-01-30T18:30:54Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s amazing to me that I keep seeing otherwise intelligent people attempt to equate disagreement over Bush’s inept actions regarding Saddam Hussein with lack of criticism for Saddam Hussein. Inept or not this thing is hitting a critical mass. But for GWB’s supposed ineptitude Iraq would still be refusing inspectors (yes, they originally left). This did not all start under GWB. His dad screwed up by not getting a surrender and Clinton used underwhelming force. There is plenty of blame. Reagan used Iraq as a counterweight to Iran. Some say we sent Iraq bioweapons precursers. France sold them nuclear technology. The UK almost shipped them the parts for the Babalon “super gun.” Fine. Everyone screwed up. What do we do about a vengeful, resourceful Saddam over the long term? When the troops are positioned it becomes a binary operation: go or no go. To say go means you want to try to topple Saddam, no go means, functionally, support for his regime. Why? There are no other reasonable options on the table for the elimination of his regime, and the troops will not stay in place forever. Therefore, IMO, it is incumbent upon everyone involved in the debate to seriously note what kind of exceptionally dangerous man Saddam is. He is a dictator’s dictator. There really are not that many nations I can think of plunging ahead with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons capability like Iraq. Yes, this is in dispute. But there is a history of such programs and substantial resistance to the terms of the recent UN resolution. Just denial of access to the scientists should cause any reasonble person to suspect Saddam is hiding his programs. Of course, there is much more. Just listen to Saddam and his sons, they think they are a threat to the United States. I’m all for debate and criticism and “ept” foreign policy, but ultimately this is going to come to a head, or not. Really, that has been true since the end of Gulf War I and the lack of compliance by the Iraqis. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/15 "2003-01-30T18:31:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* > \*\*So if Iraq can develop WMD with weapons inspectors present, what do you think Gadaffi can do with none present? Don’t we have other enemies in the world that currently aren’t operating under strict embargos? > Why should Iraq take precedence? \*\* Why shouldn’t Iraq take precedence. We have to pick some order, or we’re paralyzed. I wish we could solve all the world’s threats immediately, but we don’t have the resources. Do you believe. **errata** , that we should therefore deal with none of them? Your argument is weak. E.g., there are more AIDS sufferers in Africa than we have resources to provide medicine to. It’s hard to decide which victims are the neediest. Should we therefore help nobody? ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/16 "2003-01-30T18:44:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bordelond \* > 9/11 - unknown, unanticipated threat carried out by apparently ordinary folks with no public profiles at all. So Al Quaeda and Bin Laden had nothing to do with it? ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/17 "2003-01-30T18:57:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > Your argument is weak. E.g., there are more AIDS sufferers in Africa than we have resources to provide medicine to. It’s hard to decide which victims are the neediest. Should we therefore help nobody? I haven’t really made any argument yet. Your analogy isn’t particularly apt either. Comparing military invasion and occupation with distributing medicine is pretty ridiculous. My point isn’t that there are too many dictators to topple, but that Saddam’s threat is insignificant compared to the most powerful nation on earth. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Wrong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@Mr.Wrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Wrong)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/18 "2003-01-30T19:22:24Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **errata** _: > Furthermore, to go back to what Mr.Wrong said, why are negotiations more “distasteful” than war? I didn’t say negotiations were more distasteful (probably a poor word choice, mea culpa) than war. I would just rather negotiate from the strongest position possible. Back to the OP: > [@](#): > > I, for one, have not been convinced that Iraq presents an immediate and viable threat to the US. For one, we pretty much feel like we can bomb them whenever we feel it suits us. We wouldn’t do this if we were afraid of a genuine counterattack. Secondly any sane individual would acknowledge that the US has an overwhelming military superiority that’s makes any possible action by Iraq instantly suicidal. Ever hear of a Murder/Suicide? We have taken on the obligation of protecting our Allies from just the sort of threat that would exist if Sadaam is allowed to go unchecked. If we wait for him to develop the capability of raining missiles on, say France, then we’re stuck with the choices of: a)Unloading with all our nuclear barrels, or b)asking him what he would require to spare the French (maybe he would take Euro-Disney) ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/19 "2003-01-30T19:46:16Z")
This may be the most interesting “letter to the editor” I have ever read… [Europe and America must stand united](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-559907,00.html) > [@](#): > > The United Nations Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those Resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result. It’s signed by: José María Aznar, Spain José Manuel Durão Barroso, Portugal Silvio Berlusconi, Italy Tony Blair, United Kingdom Václav Havel, Czech Republic Peter Medgyessy, Hungary Leszek Miller, Poland Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark Who said anything about unilateral action? If the UN doesn’t act, then there are plenty who are willing to join the US in a coalition to remove Saddam, it would seem. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410/20 "2003-01-30T19:59:36Z")
That conclusion of yours is a little short of what they’re saying, **debaser**. Nowhere do they commit to join a military coalition. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-afraid-of-iraq/151410.md?page=2)