Have you considered the negative consequences of attacking Iraq?

[MadRat]

Hey edit my quote

hehe

 

[snooker]

Originally posted by: vash
Taking out Saddam isn't the right thing to do right now. Has Saddam provoked any attack? Has Saddam done anything specific over the last 5-10 years that would warrant a change in power?

Iraq is always provoking war

and more provoking

and more

 

[0ops]

Originally posted by: Xerox Man

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.

I would like to see a link to that. And china is likely to become the premier superpower since they have more people
and an expanding economy. But so far they stay out of everyone else's business.

 

[Valinos]

Originally posted by: 0ops

Originally posted by: Xerox Man

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.

I would like to see a link to that. And china is likely to become the premier superpower since they have more people
and an expanding economy. But so far they stay out of everyone else's business.

China should be #1 in our Axis of Evil. Trust me, just because they've been quiet for a couple years now doesn't mean they aren't planning world domination for the long run.

 

[reitz]

I would like to see a link to that.

It was reported in the Christian Science Monitor within the last few days. Do a search here and you should easily find the thread about it.

As always, though, consider the source.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: Valinos

Originally posted by: 0ops

Originally posted by: Xerox Man

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.

I would like to see a link to that. And china is likely to become the premier superpower since they have more people
and an expanding economy. But so far they stay out of everyone else's business.

China should be #1 in our Axis of Evil. Trust me, just because they've been quiet for a couple years now doesn't mean they aren't planning world domination for the long run.

It's quite sad that U.S. businesses are so heavily invested in China.

 

[lowtech1]

China-made artillery seized in Afghanistan - Washington times

' More than 100 Chinese artillery rockets found in Afghanistan were either smuggled into the country from China or sent years ago during the Soviet military occupation, U.S. officials said yesterday.

The discovery raises new questions about China's past support of the Taliban militia and its al Qaeda terrorist allies.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in December that a large stockpile of Chinese-made arms had been found in some caves used by al Qaeda fighters.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said at the time Mr. Rumsfeld made the remarks that he had no idea what the defense secretary was talking about and insisted that Beijing had observed a U.N. arms embargo against the Taliban regime.

A Taliban military commander stated in a published interview in October that China was secretly assisting the Islamic militia, which was ousted by U.S.-led forces in December.

The commander, Maulvi Jalaluddin Haqqani, said China was working with the Taliban regime and that Beijing was "also extending support and cooperation to the Taliban, but the shape of this cooperation cannot be disclosed."

China's government denied the commander's statement, saying it was a "fabrication." China has said it does not support terrorism.

U.S. intelligence officials identified two Chinese companies that were building a telephone-switching network in Kabul for the past two years.

Elements of the Chinese phone network were bombed during U.S. air strikes that began Oct. 7. '

 

[0ops]

lets not forget who originally armed the guy who started that mess

 

[MadRat]

<<lets not forget who originally armed the guy who started that mess>>

Damn Phoenecians. Lets exterminate the whole lot of them!

 

[UltraQuiet]

Just some random thought as I read this thread:

1. Many of you have said, "What has he done lately?" It's a valid point however it is much simpler to prevent a war with a few surgical strikes than it is to react and fight a full blown war. If he would just let the inspectors in ( the US weapons get inspected, why can't he?) then a lot of this would be moot.

2. My main concern with taking out Saddam is I don't think anyone knows what's behind door number two. Are we in for another Afghanistan where we are stuck for years trying to keep a certain gov't in power? I know that there is a group in DC right now talking to Cheney and others but what is the real deal with them? Will they cooperate with each other or is it going to be one big power struggle? I am worried about a long term commitment with no exit strategy.

3. What indications are there that China would be involved? I have seen no indications of Chinese expansionism (save Taiwan) to make me believe that they would somehow be involved. Please educate me.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: reitz

I would like to see a link to that.

It was reported in the Christian Science Monitor within the last few days. Do a search here and you should easily find the thread about it.

As always, though, consider the source.

No need to be sarcastic about "the source". I didn't even know the CSM had reported it - I read it on Janes or Global Defense Weekly, I can't remember which. Looking for the link now.

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
Just some random thought as I read this thread:

3. What indications are there that China would be involved? I have seen no indications of Chinese expansionism (save Taiwan) to make me believe that they would somehow be involved. Please educate me.

I don't think there's been anything quantitative, at least I haven't found anything. Don't know why others are bringing it up, but hey - two biggest guys on the block; they're going to scrap eventually.

 

[Yossarian451]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yep it came from a ranch pretty close to my town, but it was an old sample from a dead cow, then they sent it off.

Originally posted by: 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.

While it would not be justifiable to seize the old field, if we did attack and replace the governmaent in Iraq, the sanctions would be lifeted. It would actualy probably flood the market at the short-term, possibly not much in the long-run. Opec may try to lash-back, but that is probably doubtful, as long as the leader we replace him with is complasant.

 

[dawks]

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.

This is precisely the attitude that gets the U.S. into alot of trouble in the first place. And as far as most people know and understand, was a BIG factor in the whole 9/11 situtuation.

Like I've used in an example before.. What if the Germans, or Russians developed the same attitude towards the U.S.? "Were tired of that piece of sh!t Bush, time to get rid of him"

You think the U.S. and its supporters will stand idley by and just let it happen?

The U.S. should try to learn from its mistakes. Its time to understand that not everyone agrees with their 'policies'.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: DaZ

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.

This is precisely the attitude that gets the U.S. into alot of trouble in the first place. And as far as most people know and understand, was a BIG factor in the whole 9/11 situtuation.

Like I've used in an example before.. What if the Germans, or Russians developed the same attitude towards the U.S.? "Were tired of that piece of sh!t Bush, time to get rid of him"

You think the U.S. and its supporters will stand idley by and just let it happen?

The U.S. should try to learn from its mistakes. Its time to understand that not everyone agrees with their 'policies'.

We get in trouble when we support totalitarian regimes (e.g., Egypt and Saudia Arabia). It's no coincidence that the Iranian people don't hate Americans.

 

[Grey]

Several people have gotten it right. Who comes AFTER Hussein? We have groups in the north who can't even gain power now, who are vying for power. They are a minority in that nation. If America puts them in place to govern will it be democratic/republican nation or a new Taliban? And I agree if we could indeed set up a elected government the rest of the mid-east would be in shock. America is seen as hypocritical when we support the totalarion goverments in mid-east but promote republican nations elsewhere.

You have to remember that Saddam has been training that entire nation to hate America for 12 years now. Will they suddenly just become neutral in their feelings after the embargo effects? Saddam also has a huge family that has various controls over the population, I think he has a son that is more brutal then he is.

Then there is the whole invasion itself. What happens if Hussein DOES use Chemical/Bio weapons? What response would that entitle? I am half afraid if we responded in kind the world will be like "well you did bring it upon yourself". Iraq has essentially been invaded unprovoked. The similiar scenario would be the removal of Milan Milosevic.

 

[glenn1]

This is precisely the attitude that gets the U.S. into alot of trouble in the first place. And as far as most people know and understand, was a BIG factor in the whole 9/11 situtuation.

Sorry, but it's YOUR type of attitude that gets the U.S. into those sorts of situations. Isolationism and appeasement, the favorite methods of the cowards of the pacifist crowd, only encourage further atrocities and lead to more bloodshed in the end.

 

[Random Variable]

You have to remember that Saddam has been training that entire nation to hate America for 12 years now.

The Iraqi people are not as stupid as you portray them.

 

[syzygy]

the oil market might see a jolt that could cause prices to jump temporarily. bush will want to minimize the domestic fallout - and
save his approval rating - by pushing the assault beyond the winter oil season. if iraq were an imminent threat, and not a simple
pariah on the international scene, bush could call for the attack much sooner.

hussein will try to prolong the conflict. he'll rely on his elite troops hunkered deep inside civilian centers and he'll definitely plan
mass infrustructure destruction, like the russians who burned moscow down rather than let napoleon's forces benefit from a fully
provisioned city. you can expect him to destroy his own oil fields and possibly launch suicidal chemical raids against kurds, shiites
in the south, and isreal.

bush may want to consider pushing forcefully for a resolution to the isreali-palestinian knot to help sell his case for an attack on
iraq. there are many governments in the arab world that are sensitive to pressure from the street. how many true democracies are
there in the arab world ? public disenchantment is massive and its not unthinkable that one or two of these regimes could see
major upheavals. if any of these possible jeopardized countries are opec members oil prices will rise.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: Vespasian

You have to remember that Saddam has been training that entire nation to hate America for 12 years now.

The Iraqi people are not as stupid as you portray them.

Indeed. I would the Iranians to that too. Both peoples are held prisoner by madmen who were never elected or chosen by the people.
I have read many accounts from Western reporters in Iraq who say the FEAR of Saddam's goverment among average everyday people is PALPABLE.
If Bush was Saddam, and the US was Iraq, everyone who ran a 'Bush is a monkey' website or who posts messages critical of Bush on messageboards would be visited
by the Secret Police in the middle of the night and disappear forever. In this enviroment who can really be expected to step forward first against Saddam?

 

[SuperTool]

It appears to me that Saudi Arabia is the real problem behind terrorism. This beating around the Bush and going to Iraq which is a secular government by middle east terms and ignoring the real source of terrorism seems to me all appearance and no substance.

 

[alphatarget1]

we might be facing a double-dip recession right now, why spend our money to fight a non-imminent threat to us? I seriously doubt they have any ICBMs to launch against us.

no one is supporting a war against iraq, bush is doing this to boost his popularity just like his father did. I don't see any reason to go into Iraq and take him out when american soldiers might be killed. Bush Sr imposed democracy in Panama and fvcked it up. We have more problems on hand than just to hunt down Saddam. It certainly doesn't make sense to put it as our #1 priority. Besides, they offered to let the UN investigators to go back in again, if they have anything fishy, then we can strike and likely gaining more allied support.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: kenleung
no one is supporting a war against iraq, bush is doing this to boost his popularity just like his father did.

Yes, of course. No one wanted war back in 91' either eh? Old Bush just went to war to increase his popularity!
I mean those in Kuwait who were being invaded, raped, tortured and generally plundered by Iraq didn't want war either did they?
And the UN Security council members who voted for action against Iraq... they didnt war war either I guess.

No one is supporting war? Think again:

An article in the repsected UK-based 'Economist':

The case for war

Aug 1st 2002
From The Economist print edition


If you will the end, it is only honest to will the means

Reuters


ITS founders called on America to show a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. And so, by and large, it does. But in the case of the looming American war against Iraq, another wise saw needs to be borne in mind. This one can be found pinned in many a corner shop. It advises customers against asking for credit, because ?a refusal often offends?.

In much of the world, and even among some Americans, indignation is growing at George Bush's slow but remorseless preparations to remove Saddam Hussein, Iraq's president, by military force (see article). No step, the complainers say, could be better calculated to offend a billion Muslims and confirm fears that, after September 11th, the over-mighty superpower feels entitled to trample wantonly on any enemy, imagined or real. At the least, it is argued, America should abide by the rules. If Mr Bush is planning military action against Iraq, he should first ask the UN Security Council for permission. At talks in Germany this week, the French president and the German chancellor said once again that there could be no new military action against Iraq without fresh UN approval.

Will Mr Bush seek a new resolution before removing Mr Hussein? It is unlikely. If he asks, he may be refused, and a refusal often offends. Having refused, the other members of the Security Council will be offended in turn if?make that when?America, with Britain probably alongside, strikes Iraq regardless. Lawyers for America and Britain will claim that Mr Hussein's wholesale violation of the UN disarmament agreements he signed after being driven out of Kuwait in 1991 is all the justification they need. But with all due respect to the Security Council, the legal arguments its members deploy to justify their prior political choices are not especially gripping. The issue here is not Jarndyce v Jarndyce, a quarrel about small print. It is the danger Mr Hussein poses to the world, and whether that danger is big enough to justify the risks of a war.

How bad does he have to be?
The danger Mr Hussein poses cannot be overstated. He is no tinpot despot, singled out for arbitrary American punishment. Nor is Iraq a banana republic. With the possible exception of North Korea, but perhaps not even then, Mr Hussein is the world's most monstrous dictator, who by the promiscuous use of violence has seized unfettered control of a technologically advanced country with vast oil reserves. He has murdered all his political opponents, sometimes squeezing the trigger in person. He has subdued his Kurdish minority by razing their villages and spraying them with poison gas. In 1979 he invaded Iran, thus setting off an eight-year war that squandered more than 1m lives. In 1990 he invaded and annexed Kuwait, pronouncing it his ?19th province?. When an American-led coalition started to push him out, and though knowing Israel to be a nuclear power, he fired ballistic missiles into Tel Aviv, in the hope of provoking a general Arab-Israeli conflagration. Next time you hear someone ask why, in a world full of bad men, it is Mr Hussein who is being picked on, please bear all of the above in mind. He may very well be the worst.

And yet it is not simply in his record of aggression, cruelty and recklessness that the peril to the wider world resides. If that were all the story, the danger might be easily contained. The unique danger in Iraq is that this country's advanced technology and potential oil wealth could very soon give this aggressive, cruel and reckless man an atomic bomb.



The unique danger in Iraq is that its advanced technology and potential oil wealth could soon give this aggressive, cruel and reckless man an atomic bomb


How dangerous would that be? To judge by the reaction of Mr Bush's foreign critics, the magnitude of the threat is in the eye of the beholder. But it is not difficult to see why, after September 11th, Americans in particular find it hard to be sanguine about the prospect of a sworn enemy equipping himself with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In the worst case, these might one day be used against the United States, either directly by Iraq itself or by some non-state group to whom Mr Hussein had transferred his lethal technology. At a minimum, a nuclear-armed Mr Hussein could be counted on to revive his earlier ambitions to intimidate his neighbours and dominate the Gulf. Prophesying is difficult, especially about the past. But if Mr Hussein had already had nuclear weapons when he invaded Kuwait 11 years ago, he might still be there.



Presidents and precedents
Many people who acknowledge that Mr Hussein is a danger nonetheless oppose Mr Bush's plan to depose him, on the ground that this would in itself set a dangerous precedent. How safe would the world really be if the United States, armed now with Mr Bush's new doctrine of pre-emption, swanned about it shooting up any country that possessed or sought to acquire weapons of mass destruction, deposing any president whose face it did not like? That is a good question. It is not, however, the question that arises in Iraq.



At a minimum, a nuclear-armed Mr Hussein could be counted on to revive his earlier ambitions to intimidate his neighbours and dominate the Gulf


When he invaded Kuwait, Mr Hussein forfeited some of Iraq's normal sovereign rights. After his defeat, it became apparent that Iraq had been secretly developing chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, in contravention of its treaty obligations, such as those under the nuclear non-proliferation pact. Given this, and his recent aggression, the United Nations put Iraq under a uniquely intrusive system of surveillance, designed to ensure that his WMD efforts would come to an end. Crippling economic sanctions were to be lifted only when the UN's arms inspectors could be sure he had complied. Eleven years on, Iraq is still crippled, the inspectors have been forced out, and nobody believes that Mr Hussein has given up seeking a bomb or scrapped all the chemical and biological weapons he already has. He has literally preferred to starve Iraq than to give up his appetite for them.

None of this is to argue that a war to remove Mr Hussein should be undertaken lightly. Though the Iraqi army is even less of a match for America's than it was a decade ago, that was a different sort of war. With his own head and not just his most recent conquest at stake, and especially when he calculates that he has nothing to lose, Mr Hussein might very well use the unconventional weapons he has collected. The casualties this time?especially the civilian casualties?could be much larger than they were before.

It is little wonder, given this, that people of goodwill are groping for a safer alternative. But wishful thinking in the face of mortal danger is bad policy. Perhaps the best hope is that, as the noose tightens, Mr Hussein will save himself by letting the inspectors return. If they did so on a credible go-anywhere, check-anything basis, such an opportunity would be worth grabbing, at least to see if it worked.

Failing this, however, the outlook is grim. Some argue that a better alternative to war is to keep Mr Hussein in his box, persevering with the strategy of containment. But after 11 years, it is time to acknowledge that the box is full of holes and that containment has failed. By keeping Iraq poor, the sanctions have inflicted suffering on Iraq's people and so brought America and its allies into disrepute in much of the Arab world. But the sanctions have not dulled the Iraqi leader's appetite for the most lethal of weapons, and have slowed rather than stopped his ability eventually to procure them. The honest choices now are to give up and give in, or to remove Mr Hussein before he gets his bomb. Painful as it is, our vote is for war.

 

[trenchfoot]

my old age has honed my skepticism to a point where i would have to ask when weighing the positives/negatives:
what 10 persons will profit the most (monetarily/politically) from engaging hussein in a shooting war?
after that is found out, then ask those 10 persons what it is and whose lives they are willing to "negatively impact" to reap their profits.
therin lies the truth of the matter. ( i think)

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: kenleung
no one is supporting a war against iraq, bush is doing this to boost his popularity just like his father did.

Yes, of course. No one wanted war back in 91' either eh? Old Bush just went to war to increase his popularity!
I mean those in Kuwait who were being invaded, raped, tortured and generally plundered by Iraq didn't want war either did they?
And the UN Security council members who voted for action against Iraq... they didnt war war either I guess.

No one is supporting war? Think again:

When i referred to bush trying to gain popularity i was refering to panama, not iraq. Bush senior had very high approval rate but still failed when he ran against clinton, it might've been because of Perot but he lost. Bush junior obviously isn't doing so well in approval ratings right now and he needs something to cover it up, much like clinton did when there were investigations on monica (he sent missiles to sudan didn't he?)

Is Kuwait being invaded as of today? no. our allies (except britain) are very skeptical over an Iraqi invasion. furthermore, if they don't b!tch and let us send investigators over there to check their weapons out, I don't see any reason to oust him now because of the economic situation we have today. If we fight Iraq today, our Allies probably won't even pay a penny for it. It was bush sr's fault for not finishing him off the first time, we don't need dubya to spend more US taxpayers money to invade iraq when they are not directly threatening america. I don't want US soldiers to be used as political tools of Dubya.

 

[Balthazar]

Originally posted by: 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!

How are you going to feel when on of the explosions you see happens to be over on our turf?

Be carefull what you wish for, ending anyones life is not a decision that hsould be made ona whim for entertainment value.

And if you would stop and look at what you said you might realize your error....