Have you considered the negative consequences of attacking Iraq?

[Hayabusa Rider]

I have been watching opinions here on Iraq. As usual (and rightly so) there are many points of view out there. I know that the US government really would like to get rid of Hussein based on what he might do, but there seems to be no understanding or at least public discussion of the negatives for the US

It seems to me that attacking an arab Islamic country is a real can of worms. The Saudis, who I think are marginal supporters of us anyway, might be forced to side with our opposition. Let's take only oil for a moment. Becoming enemies with virtually every Arab state seems a bad idea, since they control a large proportion of the lifeblood of our economy. Waiting for he "free market" to come in and rescue us when there might not be enough heating oil to keep us warm is also a bad idea. The market if not proactive. It acts when there is money to be made, and putting a whole new infrastructure to support alternate energy sources on short notice is not going to happen. Supporters of "kicking Saddams ass" might feel differently when they have to pay 5 or 10 dollars a gallon, or even prohibited from buying fuel on demand at any cost. Trying to seize oil fields wont work either, because if there are extremists there- and we know there are- they would rather blow them up and starve, then let them be taken and then starve anyway.

I do not like Hussein, but I like less what may happen as a result of attacking a country to get one man. Seeing ten or hundreds of thousands die to achieve this goal is not the least of my concerns too.

 

[Alphathree33]

Just remember his last name is SADDAM it's just said FIRST. It's like calling bush 'george' when you say 'hussein'.

 

[Kadarin]

Well, if we took over Iraq and gained control of their oil fields, that would kind of solve the oil-shortage problem, wouldn't it?

 

[IGBT]

Had we done the hardwork and the homework to develop hydrogen as a consumer consumable fuel we wouldn't be in this jam. Also consider the growing US population and out of control immigration "fueling" the energy problem. It all adds up to a severe energy crisis in the near future. All the Arabs have to do is wait us out and watch the US twist in the breeze on CNN. Iraq is just a bump in the road.

 

[Valinos]

Finally, Alaska and Canada will be useful to us...


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

 

[vash]

Taking out Saddam isn't the right thing to do right now. It would have been the right thing to do in 1988, but not now. Has Saddam provoked any attack? Has Saddam done anything specific over the last 5-10 years that would warrant a change in power? If we wanted to take out a leader, just because they stand for things we don't believe in, there are many places we could easily make an argument for, not just Iraq.

Saddam is a target of the Bush/Republican propoganda. Unless he does something very specific in the eyes of the world, trying to take him out will only hurt our world image. Our heavy allies will remain allies, the ones on the fringe will stay on the fringe. If Bush really tries to take him out, it could be political suicide. Bush will either get an easy ride to re-election, or be shoveled away like his father.

vash

 

[brianp34]

Becoming enemies with virtually every Arab state seems a bad idea

Most of them already hate us because of our support for Israel. We aren't exactly popular.

 

[Valinos]

Guys, we need some action in the news. Martha Stewart, rehashed kidnappings, crooked execs, and dead Jews get old after so long. No more talk, I wanna see some explosions!

 

[woodie1]

I think a policy of containment is best. Let Iraq attack one of her neighbors again and see where the Arabs run for help. He is no threat to us at this time.

 

[Random Variable]

Every action has at least some negative consequences.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: woodie1
I think a policy of containment is best. Let Iraq attack one of her neighbors again and see where the Arabs run for help. He is no threat to us at this time.

I'm still not convinced that the Iraqi government didn't supply the anthrax spores that were sent through the mail last fall. The FBI's investigation seems to be going nowhere.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Supporters of "kicking Saddams ass" might feel differently when they have to pay 5 or 10 dollars a gallon, or even prohibited from buying fuel on demand at any cost. Trying to seize oil fields wont work either, because if there are extremists there- and we know there are- they would rather blow them up and starve, then let them be taken and then starve anyway.

Replacing the govt in iraq would not cause drastic change in oil prices for several reasons:

1. We have diverse number of suppliers, we probably get less than 10% of our oil from iraq and saudi.
2. Russia is exporting more oil every day.
3. We are working on filling our 700 Million barrel nation reserve.
4. Saudi needs to sell oil more than we need to buy from them(saudi is heavily in debt).


There would of course be some negative consequences, but I doubt an oil shortage would be one of them.

 

[glenn1]

If only things would fall so neatly into place as in your scenario. We're simply looking for an excuse to go in and kick some ass and perform a regime change in Saudi Arabia. The way you see things, they would hand us the reason on a silver platter.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Originally posted by: woodie1
I think a policy of containment is best. Let Iraq attack one of her neighbors again and see where the Arabs run for help. He is no threat to us at this time.

I'm still not convinced that the Iraqi government didn't supply the anthrax spores that were sent through the mail last fall. The FBI's investigation seems to be going nowhere.

I thought it was clear that the spores came from a militery base in the US?

 

[0ops]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Supporters of "kicking Saddams ass" might feel differently when they have to pay 5 or 10 dollars a gallon, or even prohibited from buying fuel on demand at any cost.

that doesn't seem very likely. what you should be worried about is all those weapons he's been developing.
besides, it seems that we may get iraqi opposition groups to do most of the dirty work.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Originally posted by: woodie1
I think a policy of containment is best. Let Iraq attack one of her neighbors again and see where the Arabs run for help. He is no threat to us at this time.

I'm still not convinced that the Iraqi government didn't supply the anthrax spores that were sent through the mail last fall. The FBI's investigation seems to be going nowhere.

I thought it was clear that the spores came from a militery base in the US?

It was a strain that US military had on file, but anthrax is quite common around the world. This strain as I recall occurs naturally in Texas.

 

[glen]

He WILL die of old age soon.
I am not sure we need to stir up more trouble in the Middle East.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Originally posted by: woodie1
I think a policy of containment is best. Let Iraq attack one of her neighbors again and see where the Arabs run for help. He is no threat to us at this time.

I'm still not convinced that the Iraqi government didn't supply the anthrax spores that were sent through the mail last fall. The FBI's investigation seems to be going nowhere.

I thought it was clear that the spores came from a militery base in the US?

The FBI has yet to make a clear statement regarding the anthrax investigation. It almost seems like they're hopelessly lost.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Originally posted by: woodie1
I think a policy of containment is best. Let Iraq attack one of her neighbors again and see where the Arabs run for help. He is no threat to us at this time.

I'm still not convinced that the Iraqi government didn't supply the anthrax spores that were sent through the mail last fall. The FBI's investigation seems to be going nowhere.

I thought it was clear that the spores came from a militery base in the US?

It was a strain that US military had on file, but anthrax is quite common around the world. This strain as I recall occurs naturally in Texas.

I thought that the strain was originally discovered in Iowa. And that countries around the world (including Iraq) have or had samples.

 

[Tripleshot]

Have you considered the negative consequences of attacking Iraq?

What negative consequences? There are none. It is time to introduce democracy to Iraq and ther Arab/muslum world. It can only get better by our intervention in the long run. saddam must be removed from power, period. Get used to that concept. It will be historic.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Originally posted by: woodie1
I think a policy of containment is best. Let Iraq attack one of her neighbors again and see where the Arabs run for help. He is no threat to us at this time.

I'm still not convinced that the Iraqi government didn't supply the anthrax spores that were sent through the mail last fall. The FBI's investigation seems to be going nowhere.

I thought it was clear that the spores came from a militery base in the US?

It was a strain that US military had on file, but anthrax is quite common around the world. This strain as I recall occurs naturally in Texas.

I thought that the strain was originally discovered in Iowa. And that countries around the world (including Iraq) have or had samples.

Well the sample came from Texas, it just got sent to Iowa where whatever govt agency does the research on such things.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Have you considered the negative consequences of attacking Iraq?

What negative consequences? There are none. It is time to introduce democracy to Iraq and ther Arab/muslum world. It can only get better by our intervention in the long run. saddam must be removed from power, period. Get used to that concept. It will be historic.

A democratic Iraq would send needed shockwaves over the entire middle east.

 

[Dark4ng3l]

Or maybe and Iraq that reflects light back to the sun would send a better message....

 

[MadRat]

My concerns aren't that the Middle East will give alot of resistance to an attack, nor will they forcibly kick out U.S. troops. Face it, the Middle East is one of the least militarized regions in the world, with Iraq and his cronies ranking somewhere between the operational sustainability of South American and Central African countries.

The implications is that China will use American tactics in the near future in order to justify some awfully thorny situations. I am almost certain you will see Chinese intervention in any assault on Iraq, not that it would matter. Its the idea that China mistakenly wants to be the premier superpower in the 21st century.

btw - You won't see worse than $3/gallon fuel even if something horribly goes wrong.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: MadRat
My concerns aren't that the Middle East will give alot of resistance to an attack, nor will they forcibly kick out U.S. troops. Face it, the Middle East is one of the least militarized regions in the world, ranking near the bottom of operational sustainability next to the majority of South American countries.

The implications is that China will use American tactics in the near future in order to justify some awfully thorny situations.

I am almost certain you will see Chinese intervention in any assault on Iraq, not that it would matter. Its the idea that China mistakenly wants to be the premier superpower in the 21st century.

There are also indications that China is selling arms to Al Qaida, most specifically high-altitude capable SAMs able to shoot down B-52s.