Should we attack Iraq

[Rakido]

What i don't understand:

Why didn't they killed/kidnapped/shot to the moon/whatever Saddam back in the gulf war 12 years or so ago?

As far as i remember, the general consens back was: he is better to control now as a defeated leader.

So, if he's back to full strength now and again a threat to the world, who's to blame? Wasn't this forseeable?


Rakido

[Dr Mordrid]

Because the same lame, chickenshit morons in the UN and NATO that are complaining about us acting now were complaining that we shouldn't do it then

Unfortunately back then Bush #1 listened to them. I don't think Bush #2 will.

Dr. Modrdid

[KRSESQ]

Saddam: I don't think the case has been adequately made that he is a direct threat to the US. He's a perfectly viable INdirect threat, tho. However, I don't believe that he's either stupid or suicidal. Even if he has WMDs he would never use them against the west because he knows full well that Bagdad and every other major Iraqi city would be a glowing cloud within hours. If he supplied such weapons to a terrorist group, see above. He knows he's on thin ice with his "training camps." He talks all big and bad, but he knows if he takes one step too many out of line he and most of his people are vapor. This is the main reason he's only attacked foes that he percieves as much weaker, i.e. Iran, Kuwait, the Kurds. Even the biggest, meanest bully on the playground isn't going to take a poke at the Principal. Not if he's got half a brain in his head, anyway.

Renewable energy: Montana-Dakota Utilities here in the American outback are putting in approximately 300 wind turbines in the eastern part of the state, to be completed sometime by the end of the decade. The energy produced will be exported to surrounding states. At least, until Greenpeace (who, along with the Sierra Club, has been whining about our coal-fired power plants) starts crying that the blades on the turbines are killing birds, at which point we'll go nuclear.

Kevin

Kevin

[Dr Mordrid]

I'd never presume a madman, and make no mistake about the fact that he is exactly that, would do the "rational" thing.

The last time we presumed that Hitler killed millions.

Dr. Mordrid

[Dogbert]

Or to give another example, would you believe that Belgium, the country that hosts the international court never paid a dime for the massacres and destruction in Congo ?

"Assumption is the mother of all ****-ups"

[KRSESQ]

Saddam knows we have him under a microscope. He knows we are salivating for the chance to stomp him hard. Like virtually every other tinhorn despot to come down the pike, he's just interested in keeping himself in charge. If he can manage to expand his borders so much the better. Saddam hasn't had much luck with that. Like any bully he hates being humiliated. Like any bully he'll avoid doing anything that humiliates him further.

Granted, I'm making the assumption that he is capable of rational thought (within the limits of his megalomania).

Hitler was lucky. He had the entire manufacturing and agricultural infrastructure, and all the natural resources of Germany at his disposal. Iraq's only natural resources are oil and sand. Saddam was able to build his old war machine with his oil revenues and with the help of his old patrons, the Soviets. Now his old patrons are gone. Their replacements can no longer afford to help Saddam rebuild his war machine. To add insult to injury, they don't even appear to need his oil anymore. And with the US ready to flatten anything that looks even remotely like a weapons factory, His best bet is to keep his aggression DEEP under ground.

The only way the US is going to be able to get rid of Saddam without being heaped with international scorn is to let him make the first move. Saddam knows full well that his first move will be his last.

Kevin

[The PIT]

Nope becuase the rest of the world bar Britain (Tony Blair) won't wear it.
Has Tony Blair considered what might happen in the UK. He might find himself having to deploy troops here to keep the peace as well in certain areas. If that happens does Britain have the man power.

[KeiFront]

Originally posted by Dogbert
Or to give another example, would you believe that Belgium, the country that hosts the international court never paid a dime for the massacres and destruction in Congo ?

1. The international court is hosted in Holland (Den Haag).

2. King Leopold of Belgium, 'The Rapist of Congo', has killed about three million Africans in the Congo in the 19th century (until 1960). His troops ravaged the country in search of ivory, diamonds, and the like. I don't know the whole history of congo but it is a bloody history (Lumumba, Mumbuto, Kabila, etc).

[mutz]

...right, assumptions are the surest path to major disaster. And I surely wouldn't create profiles and paint scenarios based on them. The Pentagon, State Department, CIA and other agencies have been running scenarios, computer and otherwise for decades to no realistic conslusions, simply because life and human beings are not scenarios cooked up in somebody's head, computer or a Clancy book. I worked six years for the DIA in the "Cold War" and learned a thing or two.

Saddam Hussain is much more of a realist, is much more experienced, more wiley and more prepared to act consequently than his US counterparts. He ran the Irak-Iran war first hand, tried out his war toys on his own people, shot his own son-in-laws, etc. He's been continuously in power longer than any of his counterparts and his power is just as great, if not greater, than it ever was. Otherwise one of his own people would have knocked him off long ago.

The reason the US and Bush Senior didn't knock him off was because first of all the US has an unrealistic idealistic policy not to be caught bumping off other country's leaders, mainly because US leaders don't want to get bumped off in return.

Secondly, all the US agencies combined couldn't pin him down. Don't think some of those hits that missed were not in hope of getting him. Hussain threw out more decoys than a lit up F-16 tossing sparklers. He didn't care WHO got hit as long as HE didn't get hit. Don't overrate US Intelligence. They missed Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and piles in between. The rest is movie and TV hype.

Thirdly, Hussain had/has a practically bomb-proof bunker(s) that the US knew they couldn't penetrate, but in any case, Hussain never went there. Another decoy.

Hussain pictures himself as the rightful leader of the Arab and Muslim world, whether anbody else does or not. US foreign policy for the last fifty years and the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft characterizations of "good and evil", War on Terrorism and Rambo arrogance is making Hussain more powerful, and if push comes to shove you are going to see more people turn to Irak than in the last war. Sharon is doing a good job there too...

But it isn't really about Irak. It is the US, in particular Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft, with the US's political and economic foreign policy, and the US assumption that the US determines who is good and who is evil that is destabilizing the world. Egoistic domination is prominent, wisdom is missing, other than the attempts of Colin Powell (who being left offstage by BCA).

Also, Bush Junior is trying to make good for Daddy who missed Hussain, and find somebody to rub out because he missed Bin Laden. Eh?

Don't be surprised if there is a 9/11 II ...

[Flangor]

Unless, or until, we are ready to go to war with the entire Mid-East. I would say no. And unless we are ready to suffer the wraith of the entire world, I would say no.

Furthermore, going after terroist cells and removing governments is two different things. Sure, Saddam supports terroists. But he is not the leader of one. And if we are going after governments that support terrosists would we not need to go after our own? The US has supported terrorist groups for a long time now, or those that use terrorists actions.

The best way to hurt these goverments that support these terrorists groups would be trade sanctions. But since we depend on their oil we will never do that.

So the real question here is. Is this war really about terrorists? Or is it about who controls the oil? And if the answer to the second questions is yes, then there is no way in hell we should go to war!

[Dilitante1]

We must (all nations as a whole) declare a no tolerance policy on terrorism, and do what it takes to make sure that these terror cells dont have the means to cause problems/deaths/etc for the world.......

as for Saddam, we need a plan for what the internal structure for the replacement of his dictatorship......

as for Iraq being the newest US territory....we dont need it, Puerto Rico is useless and only leaching off the mainland for services and it's heavy tourist traffic

[Dogbert]

Speaking of the ME, Armageddon is here in Israel. We call the place "Megido'.

About Saddam, he's America's Arafat.
How, you ask ?

Arafat is playing his game all the time knowing one thing, Rabin was here and died, Bibi was here and left, Barak came and left as well. Now Sharon is here, big deal, he'll go too but Arafat is always here...

Now how many U.S presidents have changed since the Iran - Iraq war ? Don't you think that after so many years, Saddam know his people much better than any angency in the world ?

[Dogbert]

Flangor, just a little reminder, the last world wars started because of an economic crisis. Oil can be the cause of another one.

[Dilitante1]

Dogbert, the 2 world wars were started over real estate not economics.......Germany needed land to expand and resources it didnt have.....

[goldstein]

good point dilitante1 - real estate is a big factor. In fact many of Germany's policies have been adopted by Israel which has contributed to much of the problem in the Middle East.

Israel regularly bulldozes home (germany did that), Israel needs expanded territories for it's economic and immigrant based population growth, etc. In fact, it is my opinion (since we are talking Middle East here) that Israel is the real source of many problems currently existing in that part of the world. If the US did not need an ally in that region of the world to protect its oil interests, Israel would be on its own and I sincerely doubt 9/11 would have happened. Quite frankly the Middle East would settle its problems like nation states historically have without outside interference - wars or diplomacy. But the US creates a destabilizing impact in the region by being Israel's Big Brother. Without this, many confrontations would occur only among the MidEast - and not filter over to Israel's ally - the US. You have to understand when palestinians get blown up by F-16 missiles launched by Israeli pilots - the palestenians (they can read) are quite upset when they look at the missile and see it says "made in USA".

And speaking of "terrorism"; for years the preceding 1948 Independence of Israel - Jewish goups were refered to as "terrorist" by the West often. For example "the Irgun Zvei Lumi and the Stern Gang, Palmach (another Zionist armed group) " were quite notorious and brutal; which ironically led to the standard that Hamas and other palestinian terrorist groups use today. If you want to to be truly shocked you should take a look at THE 1948 MASSACRE AT DEIR YASSIN where 250 Palestinian civilians were murdered.

http://www.jerusalemites.org/yassin.html

and another informative historical timeline of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

But if you ask the average Israeli today, they view those Jewish terrorist groups as "freedom fighters", hence a cause of friction when looking into the past between the two groups.

It's funny sometimes how we focus on the past as the future hurdles itself towards us, but that is the state of Man I suppose. Maybe we'll get past the past one day in the future, but until then we have to deal with how people really are - as opposed to some Star Trek ideal.

My point of this little history lesson is that there are 2 sides to every story, and history tends to be written by the winners. I deeply wish the violence would stop, but the curent state of affairs and alliance make it unlikely.

Once again I applaud the efforts of MURC to provide a forum to discuss this serious and sensitive issue, but I believe if we DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS ON MEMBERS and just discuss the issues some insights can occur. Agree to disagree, but don't attack people for it.

Sincerely

A Goldstein