Iraq crisis: Historical precedents (worth a read)

[Drake Tungsten]

The lesson of 1936-19 is that you have to stand firm and confront a growing menance. If you don't, the danger grows until putting it down become a f*ckin nightmare.

Exactly.

The lesson of 1936 is that you must stand firm when a country violates the terms that ended the last war. If France had moved in when Germany first started rearming and reoccupied the Rhineland, the war might have been prevented quickly and easily. They decided to let the threat develop even though they had a perfect right to stop it and the whole of Europe ended up paying for that mistake.

Are we going to just sit back and let Saddam rearm and piss all over the ceasefire he signed? Or are we going to ignore him and hope for the best? History can't predict what the future holds, but it does provide lessons as to what we should do...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Are we going to just sit back and let Saddam rearm and piss all over the ceasefire he signed?

Why should Saddam feel compelled to honor a ceasefire that the United States violated first?

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
The US State Department just ordered all US citizens to leave Iraq, by the way.

**** is about to hit the fan.

we followed suit yesterday...

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Ned

Iraq with WoMD is the superpower of the region. Couple that with his past aggressive wars to solve border disputes (same as Hitler) he is guaranteed to cause havoc if we do nothing now and withdraw. In a short few years, we may be asked to go back to the region to confront an Iraqi regime bristling with nuclear and other WoMD.

Iraq has fought two wars of aggression against its neighbours. The Iran-Iraq war was possible because Saddam had a serious conventional military capability. supplied by various western countries and the Soviet Union, and the Iranians didn't. That situation no longer applies. Kuwait on its own would have been a pushover for any reasonably capable military. Kuwait with US troops in place is a different matter.

If there is a historical precedent in this it is that Saddam will do what he believes he can get away with and whatever it takes to stay in power in his own country. As for WoMD's that particular genie is well out of the bottle, unless the US is prepared to go to war with half the world over the next decade.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why should Saddam feel compelled to honor a ceasefire that the United States violated first?

Are you really going to focus on this bull**** line of reasoning again, Boris? Defending Saddam Hussein does not become you...

[mindseye]

Are we going to just sit back and let Saddam rearm and piss all over the ceasefire he signed? Or are we going to ignore him and hope for the best?

Sorry, that's a false dilemma.

What was so wrong with containment? Did Saddam appear to be on the verge of attacking someone? I don't think he is stupid by any means. I have yet to see anything from the US gov't that indicates imminent aggression from Iraq.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by mindseye

What was so wrong with containment?

Because it meant starving Iraq's citizens.

[Agathon]

Those who use the word appeasement should find some new term, since that has been tarnished by its use with regard to Hitler.

Firstly, no one is "appeasing" Saddam anyway, if the UN (the sane UN) has its way all his WOMD's will be destroyed. That never happened to Hitler.

Secondly, Saddam will never, ever be in a position to invade one of his neighbours again. He knows that that would not be tolerated. Even if he gained nuclear weapons he would still be in no better position since nuclear weapons are basically defensive in nature - i.e. you can't use them for fear of retaliation, which would be massive if he used them. In short he is deterrable, whereas Hitler was not.

Thirdly, I'll bet you a sum of money that if the US had offered to normalise relations with Iraq again in the mid to late nineties, he would effectively be a US poodle in the region. But no, the US wished to have an enemy in the region to justify its own increased military presence. Or at least that is the only explanation which fits.

[Sava]

Saddam comparisons to Hitler are an insult to everyone who died at the hands of the Nazis and are an insult to the Americans who died fighting in WW2. These comparisons are a weak attempt for the hawks to justify their position.

[Drake Tungsten]

What was so wrong with containment?

It also breeds resentment of the United States. The sanctions and presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia are two of the major beefs terrorists have against the US.

Not to mention that it hasn't disarmed Saddam after 12 years of trying...

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Not to mention that it hasn't disarmed Saddam after 12 years of trying...

No one said containment would ever disarm him.

[Drake Tungsten]

No one said containment would ever disarm him.

You're right. It's too late for me to be posting on serious issues...

Sorry, my bad. The other point still stands, however.

[Agathon]

This morning's news is that three cargo ships in the Indian Ocean are suspected of carrying Iraq's lost WMDs.

If they are then why wasn't this brought to the attention of the Security Council? Clearly, they were being saved up as a "smoking gun." Looks like SH is not the only one in violation of 1441.

Well, board them or let them be scuttled, one way or another that will be the end of them.

[The Andy-Man]

if it was appeasement, then we would be giving saddam hussein bits of land from all over the middle east - You want a chunk of IRan? Sure take it. You want Kuwait? Sure take it.

The situation is more the USA saying: We Want Iraq.....

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It also breeds resentment of the United States. The sanctions and presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia are two of the major beefs terrorists have against the US.

Having some troops in an 'allied' Middle Eastern country is far less provocative than invading and occupying a hostile Middle Eastern country.

Invading Iraq will do nothing for the issue of resentment unless there is full and widespread re-'edumication'.