Iraq vs US

Remove all ads!

I know there has been little bits and peices of this around the boards but I figuared I would come up with a new topic for it. Do you believe that the U.S. should declaire war on Iraq and why or why not. Then if you wouldn't mind please state wich country you are from so I have an idea on what might help you think that way.
I personally don't really know I more so think we shouldn't invade, bomb, or declair war on Iraq because the goverment I know hasn't thought it out very through. I am from the U.S.

[ November 26, 2002, 17:58: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

YES, I like to see SAS in action

 

I doubt you ever have and ever will

IMO Iraq will get massacred, due to its complete technological inferiority. One of the few chances Iraq has is to lure the US into tragic failures such as killing civvies by placing military installation in population areas, mosques and hospitals and making them loose public support.

Alternatively they could use some of their remaining weapons of mass destruction against the US ... or Israel ... especially hoping the latter would attack Iraq - provoking arab support for Iraq and against the US and Israel (and considering the actual government there they have a good chance doing so).

Mind Saddam has not much to loose - he wouldn't care about a few thousand Israelis, neither about a few thousand Iraqis - but an israeli nuke on Baghdad would certainly have serious consequences for the rest of the region and further radicalize the arab terrorists around, 9/11 stuff could become something we'd better get used to.

Whatever happens, it is crucial to take care Iraq doesn't collapse after Saddam is eliminated - the last thing NATO needs is a million of mad kurds in a vacuum of northern ex-irak (an afganistan-to-be) or, less likely, Iran at the jordanian border. Just as unatractive are rebellions in the pro-westernm countries in the region as a result of such a war: There already seems to be a fundamentalist uprising in Jordania and the people in Saudi-Arabia aren't too happy with the US presence either.

The US have to be very careful - eventually there isn't a hardware solution for a mentality conflict with the locals down there.

[ November 26, 2002, 14:41: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

If the U.S. attacks (I do not agree BTW) you think saddam will sit by and watch it from his chair. He will set his oil fields aflame and than it is bye bye oil.

 

Of course, he could burn his oil and pollute his own country. That's another opportunity for him: Even more attractive since he could claim he did so to deny the US the use of the oilfields - implementing that the US were aiming on occupying them rather than just beeing interested in toppling his criminal regime.

[ November 26, 2002, 15:27: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Actually Rags, there was live coverage of whgen the SAS went into the Iranian Embassy in London after it was taken by terrorists. We just never knew their identities of course. These guys are like flipping machines, the terrorists never stood a chance in hell.

 

It seems you really think that the president of Iraq would do such a thing as pollute his own country...

I do not have much insight to the matter, but I think it´s only normal that the strong will 'enslave' the weak. In this case it could be for good... If only US would restrain from air-bombing and other artillery attacks...

 

Why?

If Iraq has the weapons that they are purported to have, then they should be disarmed. If they refuse to be disarmed, then attack is the only other option.

 

The point is not so much that Saddam actually has these weapons (like chemical weapons, missiles to transport them, maybe even nukes)- so do the russians, chinese and many others. Ownership alone is no justification for disarmament of another country. Otherwise the US intervention there would mean to enforce the privilege of certain countries to own them while denying them to others. That can hardly be what this war-to-be is about.

Saddam is not allowed to have missiles or weapons of mass destruction after the armistice following his defeat in the gulf war. He was obligated to support and allow inspections to enforce the conditions. However, Saddam didn't support anything, to the contrary.

If the US do a war now, they do so to enforce the armistice conditions - with the consequent approach to eliminate the factor that has led to the situation today. It was Saddam who ordered to ignore the armistice conditions. Now he'll either have to cooperate or be toppled.

[ November 26, 2002, 16:29: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

As I said: "US should restrain from artillery attacks." They always cause more civilian casualties and enviromental destruction than anything else. Otherwise it´s same to me if they beat Saddam to the deepest hole or allow him rule.

 

i dont think that they should be attacked... nukes anyone...

 

Virne,
what's wrong about artillery to support a ground attack? I'm amazed you consider the destructive power of a artillery shell higher than that of any other munition - like an aircraft delivered bomb. Smart munitions or not, it's all the same: About killing people and destroying things with heat, overpressure and fragments.

Since the only alternative to artillery is to use airpower to supress enemies: What's "surgical" about a 908kg bomb containing approx 450kg high explosives? Why should an aerial observer directing a laser guided bomb be more exact than a ground based observer directing artillery fire? And since even the US don't fire artillery blindly (like: for the sake of muzzle flash or the fun of the "bang") on a target I just do not get any point in your post.

If you're for war you should accept that the US will use all measures to keep their soldiers alive and to kill the enemy quickly. If US artillery kills iraqi civilians then because the iraqis like to be based close to their people.

The US and the UK are taking care when selecting targets. For several years now Saddam's missile men attack allied aircraft - from sites in civilian centers - only to disappear there quickly. In the monthly retaliatory airstrikes against targets in Iraq the US and british aircraft do not target the areas where the Iraqis fired from - lacking the real targets they attack the command centers.

The iraqis are provoking civilian casualties to find a way to accuse the US of committing warcrimes or causing "collateral damage".

[ November 26, 2002, 18:43: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Yeah, it's kinda hard not to hit civilians when the Iraqis are throwing them in the way of bombs. He builds the bombs to protect the people, then uses the people to protect the bombs. It's a whole country of meat shields.

 

Why do the Americans even give a damn? If Iraq wants to be left alone, without anyone to protect them in a disaster, why should we bother them?

 

See now real reason why the US should invade Iraq. Ok, there is possible that they ate having weapons of masdestruction...Possible but not proved, mant countrys today have NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons and I thinkt its almost as bad if the US for example got NBC weapons as for the iraqi. The USA also claims that the Iraqis are breaking against several UN konvetntions of humanrights, and thats true and should without doubt be handled, but by bombing Iraq to pieces? No. And the US arent the best nation to follow thoes rules themselfs, they have singed 10 of 26 konventions, Cuba for example have singed 17, and they do suport todays greatest murder state, the fascist Israel regime, wich I can nor understand....
Sure, the Iraqies have bombed kurds in the norhtern Iraq (ok, when they used chemical weapons was against armed rebells, but its horrible anyway) but the latest few years the Iraq and the Kurds have developed some kind of coexistance, many kurd leaders sees an US interfearance as a much bigger threat to the peace then Irak them selfs, and the samething says the neighboring nations. I realy doubt that Saddam is working with Al Qaida and its rediculous to say that Saddam will use weapons of mass destruction against the US without any reason, he isnt so stupid, the only possible way that he will use any NBC weapon is if he is pushed and invaded and have nothing left to loose. I think its dangerous for the US and the rest of the world if an invasion of Irak is luanched. Ok, I must admit that you kicked ass last time, the Iraqis were beaten hard, and I think you would win now to, but it will cost more lives, both iraqi and american. And please don't use your stupid "smart missiles" thoes really suck I mean it, they miss all the time, atleast last war....

 

Sigh, while I've personally been swayed to the side that the U.S. should adhere to the current strategy of containment rather than a forced regime change the continued disinformation is appalling.

Turandil, you state that the use of chemical weapons was against armed rebels. While I suppose Iraq hit some as they were bound not to miss them all the genocide of the Kurds in the Anfal was focused on civilians.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/Khaledtext.html

If you want to know about the current regime of murder, rape, and torture that is Iraq go check out the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch webpages. That should be a start if you are actually serious reepnorp or maybe you simply pre-judge everything associated with America in a negative manner like others.

I have my own reasons for thinking intervention is not the best policy, but here is a bit of a challenge for you Turandil and any other Europeans who think war is clearly awful: why is it that the killing of Kosovars was enough to send Europe clammoring for the U.S. to beg for help in a war and the killing of up to 100,000 Kurds isn't?

 

How many countries have violeted UN resolutions and have never been forced to obey them? For example, Israel has violeted 68 UN resolutions, Turkey almost 30 (I'm not sure about this number) and no one of these "crusaders" of human rights and world peace seems to care.

 

BOC,
The point is, Saddam agreed to these conditions to end the war. If he chooses to not follow through on his agreement, the war is back on. It was not a UN resolution, it was part of the Iraqi surrender.

As for the rest of your post, I don't know what it has to do with the situation.

 

As far as I remember, the allied forces in the gulf war were considered to be UN forces, since the UN gave the authorization of this war. Therefore, the cease fire agreement was between Iraq and UN and not between Iraq and USA or another western country.

 

I would just like to add one thing that really doesnt have to do with anything but which can maybe atleast make many people see that the US isnt the 'good guys'. There are none in an armed conflict nor in international politics, might makes right and the US is the strongest therefore they are right. The chemicals Saddam so horrible used on his unrested and unwilling subjects in northern Iraq had been supplied by the US, as had the chemicals that was used against Iran. There was a hearing in the US senate about this a while ago so confirmation should be easy to get by. So you cant really judge Saddam for the atrocities he commited against the kurds and the iranians with chemical weapons during the 80's without the same time condemning the supplier of chemical weapons, the United states of America.

The main thing I have against the current war preparation and imminent war against Iraq is the reasons, for it. The main reasons arent that he is a bastardous murderer and dictator that is a liability to the entire world. He has been that for a several decades and he started breaking the peace treaty more or less right away after the Gulf War. The reason the US wants a war so badly now are simply domestic policies, as long as Bush have a conflict, and a successful one he can grasp the reins of power tightly and no one challenge him as could be seen in the recent elections where the republicans won greatly by using war rheotorics and propaganda scaring the populace into voting for a strong leader that could lead them to victory against all the millions of lunatics with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that just waited to drop them over the US. As always there are always more than one reason for wanting a war but that is the main objective, to keep Bush popular and in power. If it hadnt been Iraq it would have been any other state that didnt fit into the western norm of democracy and liberty.