Should we fight? A liberal's view.

[Bereta_Eder]

for fook's sake

[Gatekeeper]

Well, goodness, Paiktis. I'm sure there were plenty of folks in the world who weren't happy when Greece was throwing her weight around way back in the BC era, either! So get off your high horse, matey!

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Frogger
I know why it happened...but it makes me angry.

If the West was going to go in and slaughter a couple of hundred thousand Iraqis, we should also have given the ones we didn't kill something to pay them back...like getting rid of Saddam.

I'm not going to disagree. But you would've had to convince the United Nations and, more importantly, surrounding Arab nations of that fact. I'm also sure that, knowing we had hundreds of thousands of coalition troops on the ground, Bush Sr., et al., tried to, perhaps, "alter" the mandate to extend it ... but had to settle for what he could get in the short-term.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Good point, Gatekeeper. It's not something I had forgotten, I'm just saying that, while we had assets on the ground in Iraq, it would have been very easy to do it and ask forgiveness later. True, there would have been backlash, but not anything on the order of magnitude we'll see if we go it alone this time.

-=Vel=-

I don't remember the exact geopolitical circumstances of the time, but I'm quite sure the backlash would've been just as bad as it appears to be today.

After all, if Saddam is as monstrous today as he was then, the man probably would've launched everything he had — including chemical and biological weapons — at Saudi Arabia and Israel despite the threat of U.S. retaliation w/its own WMD.

Gatekeeper

[Velociryx]

He may have wanted to (launch everything he had at Saudi and Israel), but by the time we stopped advancing, he lacked the infrastructure to do *anything*. His command structure had all but vanished, and his forces (the ones who weren't surrendering en mass) were in total chaos. They couldn't have launched an organized offensive at that stage if their lives had depended on it, and certainly nothing outside their borders.

We had them bottled up totally, and if Stormin' Norman was, in fact, only a half hour from the capitol, we could have nailed the old buzzard to a tree before he could have even thought to respond.

Afterwards, the international community would have been shocked and outraged, to be sure, but if (and here's the big if) we did it right....hauled in the UN inspectors, guarded them with the points of our own guns and those of the coalition forces, and let the people of Iraq set up a new governing body, the backlash could have been easily contained, IMO.

Now tho....whew....no way.

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

I hope we don't have to fight. I hope Saddam backs down. Krushev backed down over Cuba when Kennedy stood his ground.

Saddam has had no reason to back down before now. If he does we can thank the character of George W. Bush.

[Andrew1999]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I hope we don't have to fight. I hope Saddam backs down. Krushev backed down over Cuba when Kennedy stood his ground.

Saddam has had no reason to back down before now. If he does we can thank the character of George W. Bush.

He has no reason to back down now. We've told him many times that it's his head we want, not weapons inspectors. Why should he cooperate?

[Gatekeeper]

Vel:

Saddam still had forces at his command. I believe Baghdad was surrounded by several elite Republican Guard divisions (and they weren't among the conscripts who were surrendering en masse earlier). I'm not sure, but I imagine those very same divisions were also the ones that would've handled WMD.

Thirty minutes or not, if Saddam knew he was going down he would've struck out just out of pure spite. Besides, do you really think the man would've hung around in Baghdad? Naw. He would've fled, and done everything he could (maybe even poisoning his own people) to spite the coalition forces. With that in mind, the ensuing outrage would be very palpable, not only at Saddam but at us for violating the UN mandate and "precipitating" the whole end game thing.

Gatekeeper

[Velociryx]

Oh....quite so! I'm sure the forces in and around Bagdad would have put up more of a fight than regulars, but IIRC, it was one of those elite divisions of Rep. Guard troops who made the decision to dig their tanks into stationary positions (which promptly got them flanked and hammered). I'm just saying that without access to his infrastructure, and with no Iraqui planes flying, the man had no reliable information. No way to reconnoiter to see how close or far off we were from Bagdad. *We* knew we were half an hour to an hour away, but I'd be willing to wager that *he* didn't know that, nor much of anything else, except that his army disintegrated around him in record time.

But, your point is well-made that he was likely not in the capitol, and so snagging him would not have been as easy as sailing thru the city gates.

Still, reduced to some miserable bunker elsewhere, cut off from all communications with what few troops remained active in the field, he could not have launched anything more than a token offensive in any case, I wouldn't imagine.

Conjecture at this point (or, in keeping with the spirit of the times we're talking about, should I say "at this juncture" but fascinating conjecture)

-=Vel=-

[Gatekeeper]

Vel:

Heh. We should wait to see if MtG pops up in this thread ... he seems to be an authority on the Gulf War. Hmm ... I believe he's also a veteran of that war as well.

Gatekeeper

[Velociryx]

Yeah....he's usually got an interesting take on stuff....I'd be curious as to his thoughts here....

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

I have heard a few members of Congress say things like:

"3 weeks of bombing and 1 week on the ground"

In fact, Clinton said that also, along with the concern that Saddam would use or give away WOMD.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I hope we don't have to fight. I hope Saddam backs down. Krushev backed down over Cuba when Kennedy stood his ground.

Saddam has had no reason to back down before now. If he does we can thank the character of George W. Bush.

Back down for what? The US wants regime change, pure and simple. The only way for him to "back down" is to commit suicide.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


I don't know why but I can report that almost 100% of the people I know here in America was disgusted with it. I think in the end that is why George Bush lost his reelection bid.

It was a mistake.

Not even close. There was no widespread consensus that Saddam should have been taken out, and Bush lost his reelection bid because the economy tanked and people blamed him.

[Capt Dizle]

I think you are wrong.