Should the United States attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?

[Sybren]

Should the United States attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?

My economics class is having a discussion on this topic over the next few days and I was hoping to get some varying opinions from all of you. There are some pretty obvious reasons to remove him from power (oil concerns, nuclear weapon conerns, etc.) and some reasons to leave him alone. Any opinions would be appreciated, whether obvious or not. Thanks.

 

[StageLeft]

Yes with a well placed bomb.

 

[308nato]

There will be no "attempt". There will be success.

 

[Red Dawn]

Yes with extreme prejudice

 

[pyonir]

shoulda been done 10 years ago.

 

[Beau]

Personally, I'm sick of politicians try to negotiate peace. There are too many hidden agenda's in their negotiations. Take him out, leave him in... What does it matter, Iraq will still hate the US, and someone will just take his place, only this time with a vengeance.

 

[ThaGrandCow]

<< Yes with extreme prejudice >>

I've always loved that line. Gets a good laugh out of me whenever I see it.

 

[charrison]

The question is not "should we remove hussein from power?" but more like "should we make iraq a terratory when we are done?"

 

[shiner]

Attempt? Well if by attempt you mean find the bastard, cut off his balls, shove them down his throat, and then make him watch Julia Roberts movies until he begs to be killed then yes we should attempt it.

 

[Pocatello]

There is going to be a lot of commitment for the US if we invade Iraq and removing Saddam (I don't see any other way) and rebuild Iraq (the most difficult part). George Bush Sr. didn't want that commitment. It's going to be very expensive, both in money and lives. Can our economy support such a commitment? I don't know. We can defeat Iraq and leave and let someone else to fill the vacuum. Iran or Saudi Arabia can take over and turn Iraq into another terrorist training camp or setting up extremist religious schools where the students learn to chant death to America and the Jews..

 

[shiner]

<< George Bush Sr. didn't want that commitment >>


Oh he wanted to but knew if he did that the Arab coalition would fall apart and that we would be fighting them in both directions.

 

[Sybren]

Thanks for all the replies... It's clear what the consensus is on this board... anybody want to put down some actual economic or political reasons for their opinion though? Haha

 

[Pocatello]

No other Arab leaders are going to stick their neck out for Saddam, most of them want Saddam dead more than we. The Arabs population may think highly of Saddam, but their leaders don't, so we don't have to worry about facing many Arab countries at once. This time, no more Arabs coalition though (good riddance). We probably still need Kuwait to put our invasion force in, they're going to say yes, not sure about the Saudi. We probably will invade from Kuwait from the south and from Turkey from the north. There is no doubt in my mind that the invasion will take place. If I was Saddam, I would take out Kuwait first before the American forces arrive. A cornered rat will fight, not sit around to be eaten.

 

[308nato]

My specific reason is I don't want anyone in the future to bask in the warm glow of the gamma ray because we didn't act in time.

 

[XZeroII]

<< There will be no "attempt". There will be success >>


That's what I was going to say. If the US says something will be done, it WILL BE DONE!


<< Can our economy support such a commitment? >>


Of course. It will probably help our economy more than hinder. All the stuff we use to build it back up will/should be imported from the US, creating jobs and such. The man said it best, with extreme predjudice.

 

[Pocatello]

Our greatest dangers are not from Saddam (he's dangerous too), but the extremists from Saudi or financed by Saudis or taught by Saudis holymen, those guys can easily buy radioactive stuffs to make a dirty nuke. Their hatred toward America fuel them to do anything. They usually live within our towns and cities, not Iraq. Saddam isn't going to start a war with America, he wants to live too badly to do that, the extremists don't care about sacrificing their lives for their cause.

 

[Kadarin]

<< My specific reason is I don't want anyone in the future to bask in the warm glow of the gamma ray because we didn't act in time. >>



Yup. It's a foregone conclusion that if Saddam had a nuclear weapon, he would use it, either on US interests, or on Israel. He needs to be taken out... (what to replace him with is a tougher question, however.)

 

[travler]

I think the risks that saddam hussein poses to the US is far greater than cost of a war to eliminate him.

We cant afford to wait for thousands or millions of US citizens to die before we topple his government. It is clear that he is attempting to develope nuclear and biological weapons, and that he is not afraid to use them

 

[Hammer]

Where's a good ole fashion "wetboy" when you need one.

 

[Martin]

And after you remove him, then what?


The problem is not with removing him, which can be accomplished with proper planning, but what do to after. Clearly, the minds of iraqis need to be changed, otherwise someone else will just rise to take his place. But good luck doing that.

 

[tsunek]

Actually before the persion gulf war there was a growing movement among the educated aimed against saddam hussein. Due to the economic sanctions placed upon the country this group has other priorities.

 

[AkumaX]

poll?

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

<< Yes with extreme prejudice >>



Yeah, and kick his ass too!

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

<< . Clearly, the minds of iraqis need to be changed >>



I am not sure about that at all.

Remember, all of the demonstrations and support for Saddam are staged and arranged by the state.

It's like the Western reporters trying to fine even ONE person willing to criticize Saddam on the record.

He rules by pure fear.

 

[Adul]

I think we messed with him long enough, either do something or forget about it,