Air Raid Over Iraq!

[David Floyd]

I still don't see why I should give a **** if Saddam gets nukes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by UberKruX
maybe if we ask nicely saddam wont build WoMD.

We don't have to ask. He simply lacks the capacity to build them or deliver them if a non-existent deity somehow gifted them to him. What weapons he had were destroyed. His facilities to build them were destroyed. His plans to build them were destroyed. No one is selling him the chems in order to build them.

So, given all of the above, how is it possible that Iraq is building WomD. Remember, this is the report of the guy who was in charge of taking care of all of this and who was yanked out by Clinton.

Or maybe you don't care and just want a war.

[Drake Tungsten]

If Saddam gets nukes, it will destabalize the whole region. He will be able to attack other countries at will and America won't be able to do jack about it.

That wouldn't really matter much if Iraq was in Africa or some other worthless place, but since he controls the heart of the Middle East we have to deal with him to protect the world's oil supplies. If the world economy didn't depend on Middle East oil, I'd be all for leaving him alone. Unfortunately that isn't the case and America is the only one who can stop him.

[Lorizael]

Because one must see the consequences of one's actions. the US is not merely taking out Saddam Hussein.

It is invading a peaceful nation made up of people that for the most part are not Saddam Hussein. Many of those people will die if we launch missiles, drop bombs, and deploy tanks.

But perhaps the worst part of this plan is what happens afterwards. I have no doubt in my mind that the United States military has the capability to kill Saddam. The question then is, what happens once the horrible dictator is gone?

A possible theory is that the US installs another dictator to rule the country, as has happened more than once before. This might not happen.

But whatever happens, Iraq will lose the power it had before. The destruction of Iraq's current government could throw the entire country into a civil war, so that its military is divided and weakened.

And then, things get worse. At this point Iraq is no longer a barrier to Iran. The fundamentalist government of Iran could very well take this opportunity to flex its muscles and do a bit of expansion. This way, the entire Mideast would be thrown into war, instead of merely pockets of the Middle East.

Btw, I'm pretty sure I sound massively inarticulate here. That's mostly due to a lack of sleep and far too much activity, so forgive the bad writing skills.

Oh and what caused World War II? A better solution to fascism and such would have been to prevent World War II. I do not know how this could be done, and many say hindsight is 20/20. But saying that hindsight is perfect is merely an excuse. If we can only see the right course of action in hindsight, then we must perfect our foresight.

[chequita guevara]

If I get nukes, I will be able to destablize all of South Florida. I must not be allowed to get nukes!

How the hell am I gonna get nukes?


How the hell is Iraq gonna get nukes without the materials, facilities, or plans?

[Drake Tungsten]

Remember, this is the report of the guy who was in charge of taking care of all of this and who was yanked out by Clinton.

I assume that you're talking about Scott Ritter. If so, you should know that Scott Ritter is full of **** and has been contradicted by his own boss on the UN inspection team. The leader of the inspectors (a Belgian I believe) testified before Congress that Iraq could be close to building a few nuclear weapons by this point in time. In addition to that, both the US and British governments claim to have intelligence about Saddam's NBC weapons programme. Maybe we should wait to see that evidence before we jump to conclusions...

[Drake Tungsten]

Lorizael

I agree that the US needs to articulate its plan for what happens in Iraq after the war. We will need to stay in the country and engage in some nation building to make sure that a stable and democratic government emerges there. We certainly must do a better job in Iraq than we have in Afghanistan; the consequences of a meltdown in Iraq are much worse.

[Lorizael]

But we cannot remove Saddam by invading a country of innocent civilians. Most people in the world really are innocent. Most people in the world don't really give a **** about international politics and foreign affairs.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I assume that you're talking about Scott Ritter. If so, you should know that Scott Ritter is full of **** and has been contradicted by his own boss on the UN inspection team. The leader of the inspectors (a Belgian I believe) testified before Congress that Iraq could be close to building a few nuclear weapons by this point in time. In addition to that, both the US and British governments claim to have intelligence about Saddam's NBC weapons programme. Maybe we should wait to see that evidence before we jump to conclusions...

Ritter has a hell of a lot more credibility, given he was actually in Iraq, and not pushing papers in NYC like his boss.

Also, given the track record of American intel, why should we believe anything they say? Not having seen any evidence, despite years of accusations, I'd have to say it's just American propaganda.

[Drake Tungsten]

Not having seen any evidence, despite years of accusations, I'd have to say it's just American propaganda.

Very open-minded of you. I'm sure your analysis of the situation is completely objective.

[Drake Tungsten]

Richard Butler was the guy I was talking about and he was in Iraq as well. He has a vastly different view from Ritter.

Richard Butler refuted statements by Iraq that it has no weapons of mass destruction or the means to make such chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry.

"Everyone, Mr. Chairman, is being lied to," said the former chief weapons inspector for the United Nations. Iraq forced his team of inspectors -- charged with certifying that Iraq had no such weapons -- to leave the country in late 1998.

I don't see why Ritter would be considered more credible than Butler.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
If you can't see how World War II worked, then I don't know if I can explain it to you. In fact, if war had been pursued sooner in the 1930's, millions of people probably wouldn't have died. If France had rolled into Germany when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland, WWII would probably have been avoided. The reluctance of France and Britain to go to war allowed Europe to be engulfed in the worst war of all time.

With that in mind, why shouldn't we take out Saddam Hussein now when we have the chance to do it relatively easily? Why should we wait until he gets nukes or invades one of his neighbors again? There's a thin line between pursuing a peaceful sentiment and being hopelessly naive, with Neville Chamberlain being the de facto example of the latter.

Armchair generals with 20/20 historical hindsight...

Stop Saddam before he invades half the world with his antique army! He'll do it, Hitler did it too! Only, he was leading the biggest country in Europe, with a huge modern army that was the only one to have grasped the importance of proper armoured warfare.

[Felch]

Who the hell cares? I'm gonna grab some some munchies, some mushrooms, some reefer and a big huge bong; chill out on my bean bag chair, and watch the fireworks on CNN.

They'd better have lots of night-vision **** and tanks and dark skinned people blowing up or I'm gonna be pissed. Or actually I'll just be stoned and tripping balls.

At this point, it's time we all just accept that we don't live in a democracy and try to make the best of it.

[Immortal Wombat]

"We cannot let the world's worst leaders blackmail, threaten, hold freedom-loving nations hostage with the world's worst weapons"

I thought that was a Saddam quote 'til I re-read it.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Jaakko Stop Saddam before he invades half the world with his antique army! He'll do it, Hitler did it too! Only, he was leading the biggest country in Europe, with a huge modern army that was the only one to have grasped the importance of proper armoured warfare.

I never claimed that Saddam was as dangerous as Hitler or would invade half the world. I don't really expect Saddam to go on an invasion spree like Hitler did, but I think that it is likely that Saddam would, at the very least, attempt to recapture Kuwait once he obtains nukes. An invasion of Saudi Arabia would not be out of the question, either. Since neither country has much of a military, I don't think it would be too difficult for Iraq, even with their "antique" army. I hope you understand why it would be a disaster for the world economy if Iraq conquered Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

The only reason I used Germany as an example is that it is the most glaring example in history of ignoring a problem until it is too late. Will Iraq pose as great a threat to the world as Germany? Of course, not. It would be absurd to think so and I certainly never said it. The real question is, will Iraq pose a great enough threat to the region to justify a pre-emptive attack? I certainly think so...