How is Iraq a threat to the United States of America?
Is there is a threat, how is it so much that action is required now?
Is there is a threat, how is it so much that action is required now?
Two very simple questions about Iraq...
- Thread starter Ap0phis
- Start date
Iraq is a threat to the USA because traditionally it doesn't like us (duh), and it's trying to develop chemical/biological/nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein isn't going to just develop them and show it off like the US, Russia, UK, France, etc. does, it's developing them because it wants to use them. Hussein especially with all his anti-US philosophies and his training of terrorists. It's rumored that Hussein used nerve gas during the Gulf War, and if so then he's probably capable of doing much more now, 10 years later.
Action now is what's being debated over. If the UN is let in and it finds these weapons and it destroys them (highly unlikely, it's probably hidden somewhere 500 ft. below the surface), then that should be enough. If the UN goes in and finds nothing.. well then Hussein either 1. doesn't have weapons or 2. (stated above) he's hiding them. Then the US/UK/whoever else will either try to strike to change this or will have to do some political manuevering. If weapons are found, then this is reason for the US/UK to strike to oust the Hussein regime. So... you're kind of stuck there. The only thing that should be noted is that the United States should try and stop any form of weapons development in Iraq in the Chemical/Nuclear/Biological field by any sensible means. Sensible might include going in there and taking out the gov't.
Action now is what's being debated over. If the UN is let in and it finds these weapons and it destroys them (highly unlikely, it's probably hidden somewhere 500 ft. below the surface), then that should be enough. If the UN goes in and finds nothing.. well then Hussein either 1. doesn't have weapons or 2. (stated above) he's hiding them. Then the US/UK/whoever else will either try to strike to change this or will have to do some political manuevering. If weapons are found, then this is reason for the US/UK to strike to oust the Hussein regime. So... you're kind of stuck there. The only thing that should be noted is that the United States should try and stop any form of weapons development in Iraq in the Chemical/Nuclear/Biological field by any sensible means. Sensible might include going in there and taking out the gov't.
1). Saddam is the threat, not the nation of Iraq
2). So we wait till people start dying? It is not a guarntee that peope will die, but we know he would not hesitate to threaten us given the oppurtunity.
2). So we wait till people start dying? It is not a guarntee that peope will die, but we know he would not hesitate to threaten us given the oppurtunity.
It is a difficult situation and oil is always in the mix.
But the object now is to stay ahead of the curve to avoid any more tragic events.
I don't know if war is the right decision or not. I see logic on both sides of the argument.
War in the Mid-East will escalate oil prices making things that much harder in our economy.
We don't have all the facts, so I don't draw definite conclusions from what the media gives
nor what the Bush administration gives us. They are both tainted, geared to drive us in one direction or another.
But the object now is to stay ahead of the curve to avoid any more tragic events.
I don't know if war is the right decision or not. I see logic on both sides of the argument.
War in the Mid-East will escalate oil prices making things that much harder in our economy.
We don't have all the facts, so I don't draw definite conclusions from what the media gives
nor what the Bush administration gives us. They are both tainted, geared to drive us in one direction or another.
1. If by terrorism you mean Al Qaeeda, then there is no proof of that what so ever.
2. Again, there has been now links of Iraq/Saddam with the WTC event.
And _IF_ those points had any validity, Iraq would have been taken out along with Afghanistan.
Not a crime.
They've been trying that for years. Whats changed so suddenly now? And even then, how does that make them a threat to the USA unless the US troops are in Iraq? If you're thinking about Iraq using nerve toxins or bioweapons on US troops in neighbouring Arab countries, then look at it this way. The thing Saddam values above all is his power in the Iraqi gov't. Now attacking those troops would totally destroy that because the USA will definitely retaliate with maximum vengence and have most of the worlds support while the remaining just look away.
1. Yes, but HOW would you differentiate in the punishment you hand out? Who are you to punish THEM. How do you recognise who is and who is not suffering?
2. Wait till which people start dying? The direct threat to the US or the capability of becoming a direct threat to the US within the next 10 years has not been proven.
Yeah! Another anti-US troll!
A post of yours from another thread:
America is looking for a new b!tch in the region with a virgin A$$. The Saudi Royals don't like a sore A$$ anymore. Of course the incredible OIL capacity in Iraq is a massive bonus. It will give the US economy a hugely needed boost,
A post of yours from another thread:
America is looking for a new b!tch in the region with a virgin A$$. The Saudi Royals don't like a sore A$$ anymore. Of course the incredible OIL capacity in Iraq is a massive bonus. It will give the US economy a hugely needed boost,
Saddam is a threat to the entire World. Look what he did when he got run out of Kuwait. He had his troops set all the oil wells on fire.
Anyone who would do that just for the fun of it needs to be removed from any type of power/authority position. Not because of burning off some oil, but killing all the wildlife around the area and beyond.
Anyone who would do that just for the fun of it needs to be removed from any type of power/authority position. Not because of burning off some oil, but killing all the wildlife around the area and beyond.
We have a new military doctrine-Strike first.
and besides, we have the right to go back in there because he has repeated violated the terms of the peace agreement of the gulf war.
Iraq is not my enemy but Saddum is an enemy of George Bush Jr. (and Sr.). I say let them duke it out. Saves lives, money and would take only 2 rounds. We can even allow both Bushes in the ring vs. just Saddum.
Iraq is no greater a threat to us today as it was 1 year ago except in the mind of Bush Jr. (and Sr.).
For those who say the government is holding back on information, I say to you in a loud, clear voice: not good enough. There may once have been a time to implicitly take them at their word but they lost that credibility a long time ago. They must present clear, conclusive evidence Iraq is a direct threat to the U.S. Anything less is unacceptable.
On of Vietnam's lessons: never go to war, especially an invasion to takeover a country's leadership, without the unwavering backing of the people.
These are not simple questions about Iraq
1). You call it punishment. I am of the opinion that we would be liberating Iraq from the tyranny of an evil dictator. Civilians always die in war, its nothing personal, its not about punishment.
2). Only finite countries with some level of respect for human life and global well-being have nuclear weapons. Iraq is a rouge nation, under Saddam. I think Iraq and the rest of the world would be better off in the long run with Saddam removed. Most Arab nations aggree with that premise, but they don't support us using military support to do it. Like I said before, we don't know for sure what Saddam does or doesn't have. Four years is a good amount of time and biological weapons can be mass produced in short periods of time.
Bottom line, Iraq is a threat right now because of Saddam.
Name me one country that has been freed of a tyrannical dictator like Saddam without the express involvement/impetus of the people and ended up a sovereign, healthy, independent nation.
I ask these questions because "The Dossier" on Iraq has been made public today by Tony Blair. It shows NOTHING we didn't already know. It shows nothing that demonstrates Iraq as an immediate danger to its neighbours let alone peoples and countries farther.
It reportedly has missiles capable of travelling 350 miles and can carry bio or chemical warheads. "Experts suggest" there may be weapon grade chemical and biological material hidden amongst normal factories. There are all those aluminium pipes that are probably for enriching uranium. With its own enrichment facilities Iraq may become nuclear capable in the next 5 to 10 years pending imports of uranium from places like Africa. etc. etc.
I didn't find the Prime Ministers speech too convincing either. Granted it was well presented and well written. But he is a well presented man that reads well written speeches. Thats all.
The ONLY remotely valid argument put forward by the people i.e. experts in support for immediate war is - what are the concequences if we wait? Do we wait until he is nuclear capable? Do we wait until he uses one of his weapons?
This brings me to a newsnight article sometime ago. I think it was presented by charles wheeler or someone. The argument is, "Is it so bad if Iraq becomes nuclear capable?" I'd like to echo that question to the people here.
The points made are that with the technology he is likely to have within the next 10 to 15 years, Israel seems like the only natural enemy in range. If he has nuclear weapons, countries like Israel will think twice before again launching any cruise missile attack on Iraq. Since Israel is also nuclear capable, Iraq will have to show the same courtesy. That automatically reduces strain on the region. If Iraq launches against a US ally or on US troops in a neighbouring country, the US will be able to retaliate in a manner that won't give Iraq a chance to respond, so that would stop saddam from doing that. One thing he prizes above all is power. The moment he uses his weapons that is gone.
On the other hand, if we corner him now, the chances of him using whatever he has on whomever increase exponentially. Especially as there is NO concequence as far as he is concerened. Since, for him, the end is already here. Lets hear what you think.
It reportedly has missiles capable of travelling 350 miles and can carry bio or chemical warheads. "Experts suggest" there may be weapon grade chemical and biological material hidden amongst normal factories. There are all those aluminium pipes that are probably for enriching uranium. With its own enrichment facilities Iraq may become nuclear capable in the next 5 to 10 years pending imports of uranium from places like Africa. etc. etc.
I didn't find the Prime Ministers speech too convincing either. Granted it was well presented and well written. But he is a well presented man that reads well written speeches. Thats all.
The ONLY remotely valid argument put forward by the people i.e. experts in support for immediate war is - what are the concequences if we wait? Do we wait until he is nuclear capable? Do we wait until he uses one of his weapons?
This brings me to a newsnight article sometime ago. I think it was presented by charles wheeler or someone. The argument is, "Is it so bad if Iraq becomes nuclear capable?" I'd like to echo that question to the people here.
The points made are that with the technology he is likely to have within the next 10 to 15 years, Israel seems like the only natural enemy in range. If he has nuclear weapons, countries like Israel will think twice before again launching any cruise missile attack on Iraq. Since Israel is also nuclear capable, Iraq will have to show the same courtesy. That automatically reduces strain on the region. If Iraq launches against a US ally or on US troops in a neighbouring country, the US will be able to retaliate in a manner that won't give Iraq a chance to respond, so that would stop saddam from doing that. One thing he prizes above all is power. The moment he uses his weapons that is gone.
On the other hand, if we corner him now, the chances of him using whatever he has on whomever increase exponentially. Especially as there is NO concequence as far as he is concerened. Since, for him, the end is already here. Lets hear what you think.
Originally posted by: Lucky
Yeah! Another anti-US troll!
A post of yours from another thread:
America is looking for a new b!tch in the region with a virgin A$$. The Saudi Royals don't like a sore A$$ anymore. Of course the incredible OIL capacity in Iraq is a massive bonus. It will give the US economy a hugely needed boost,
Please refrain from posting out of context extracts. It is just childish. If you must, post the entire comment or link to my original post. Though, Its nice to see my comments concerned you enough to go on a search frenzy.
How so? That surely has not been the case historically. Remember the Cold War? USA vs. USSR? I'm sure you must know of India and Pakistan currently. Allowing a lunatic to develop or procure nuclear weapons will NOT reduce strain, anywhere. You speak as if Iraq needs them to protect herself from an Israeli offensive. When was the last time Israel offensively attacked another nation without provocation?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter