Do you support any attack on Iraq?

I do agree in bringing down Saddam, but I don't think our "p***y Allies" will agree to opening a third front. I also think the current climate of the Islamic nations will see us as the aggressor nation rather than some liberating force that your examples provide.

Our current knowledge on the Islamic nations is based on the occasional news story of the "country of the month" or some horror story that happens in the area. We don't commonly know that the Saudi government (or Turkey, Kuwait, and Jordan) is a very strong supporter of the US, but can't show it too publically for fear that their people will try to overthrow the government in some fundamentalist revolution. We get relatively low gas prices, and the occasional air base which is more than some other countries are willing to offer.

Fundamentalism has a strong influence on in all the Islamic countries and some human rights abuses do occur to repress them. But you don't necessarily hear that because it's good for the United States because they are our friends.

Pushing a war in Iraq might tip the tide in public opinion. Their local media has more inclination to show our raids and bombings into Afghanistan. They're more prone to propaganda. Saddam does preach to be a fundamentalist Muslim. And he's spent years after the war to rebuild his image as some soon to be martyr for the cause.

This might even change the relationship with our allies in Europe. The French are long time friends with the Iraqis. They set help up the infrastructure for the Iraqi bioweapons program (unwittingly?), and the French side of the UN inspections team has usually been the instigator for casting delays and setbacks for the team. Their participation in creating a coalition condenming our way is not as farfetched as it once was.

It's my opinion that this is a bad time to fight.

 

WE NEED WAR!

 

Sure, or at least that's the way they'll play it in public. And when they do that should insulate them from any fundamentalist backlash, allowing us to reach our objective of removing Saddam without creating further instability in the more friendly countries.

In all fairness those governments often stoke the anti-Americanism of the populace to distract them from their own internal problems. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are not Shah-era Iran. They are not about to be overrun by fundamentalists. Keep in mind the same argument was made about Pakistan, and what would happen when we attacked the Taliban. A radical Islamic takeover did not happen.

First and foremost those countries feel it is good to repress the most radical of Islamic fundamentalists for thier own stability, not for the benefit of the US.

Public opinion in the Middle East is already overwhelmingly against the US. Invading Iraq can't make it much lower than it already is.

Yeah, well no one ever said you could trust the Frogs. If our European comrades don't want to attack Iraq that is unfortunate, but it not stop any action we feel is necessary. It is more often than not folly to wait for the Europeans to actually lead any action.

I can totally understand the argument that this is not the best time to fight Iraq. But it will be much much worse if Saddam obtains nuclear weapons first. There is not really ever going to be a 'good' time to remove him, as it will no doubt inflame anti-Americanism, and possibly fundamentalism in the region. Better to do it now than wait for the worst possible outcome, an aggressive WMD capable Saddam out to settle some scores and grab some land.

 

No War!

 

I'm still of the opinion that the aggressor is the bad guy. Iraq hasn't attacked us. In this case they haven't even attacked Kuwait.

I hate the idea of being the country that goes out and makes an unprovoked attack, rather than the country that defends others against unprovoked attacks.

Hydra,

I agree that you did list other reasons that might encourage you to want Saddam brought down. I didn't mean to make it sound like cheap was the only reason you had for your opinion on the issue. I apologize.

 

But it's also a case for the people to believe what they want to believe. They will see the dead Iraqi civilians bound to come out of this conflict and come to their own conclusions. Just like they have with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians with the F16s we sold them. Bush is not a charismatic and eloquent leader. His words won't carry the same impact or concern over his actions. I wonder how many more times will he express "regret" over every mistake we make.

You are absolutely correct. They're "politicians" out to hold the power they have.

But we've typically been able to turn a blind eye to our idealistic issues like human rights, when our general interests are served.

This is no different. Our benefit comes from their stay in power. It's part of an interconnecting thread that we need to be able to do something in that region.

Yes, those governments have fanned anti American statement. One might call it two faced politics, but their actions can't be ignored. They kept the oil prices cheap after 9/11 (the rise in prices here was from collusion among the oil industry), and we still have a marine base in Ryhad even if they say they want to kick us out.

I do not know the amount of moderates living in the region, nor can I accurately gauge their reactions given a movement where a Christian superpower moves in on a supposedly stable soveriegn regime for the past 10 years. Saddam is a cunning b*stard. During our sanctions against him, he televised hoards of starving children and Iraqi claiming that the American government and its puppet UN did all this, when, like you said, he diverted most of his funds from the "food for oil program." Many people in the surrounding countries did feel his "plight" against the imperialistic powers.

And even if our opinion of us can't get any lower, the countries that lends their air bases and places for our troops to station are going to get the brunt of the backlash. We can't go at this alone. Though we are a superpower, we still have to fight wars conventionally on the ground. And without bases to station from sympathetic Arab nations, we can't carry this war out.

Our continued millitary presence in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War was one of the major inflammatory issues of bin Laden. He felt like it was foreigners defiling the Islamic Holy Land. To an extent, you had people unware of the cultures and customs of their host nation. A continued foreign presence in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other countries needed to carry out a successful campaign would probably spark more terrorist recruits.

Besides Britain and Canada, it's a b*stard to strike up some united effort. Unfortunately you might be right and we'll have to go at this alone.

Sadly, a "good" time to attack is if we face another disaster. Again, to me this seems like it's off on a whim. We face an economic recession, the threat of terrorism is still present, our interests in Afghanistan isn't secure (what kind of cutbacks will that front receive when we declare war on Iraq?), the question of Palestine isn't solved, and we haven't captured bin Laden. By spreading our resources thinner, we're excacerbating our economic situation.

Your concerns of Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction is very valid. But if we strike now, the odds are higher against us than it has ever been. It will be seen as a war no one else wants, and the repercussions are just as frightening.

 

The NYT article was very interesting.

IMHO Bush will be motivated by the fear of his own political instability. There is no real economic risk to the Bush insiders as they know the timing of the attack and can shift their investments to defense stocks or whatever is appropriate. Many think that the timing of the likely attack is mainly going to be determined by Bush's electoral needs.

I predict that Bush will order an attack when it looks like his popularity is fading due to problems with the economy or his administration's collective history of doing Enron, Harkin and other type of corporate shenanigans.

Unfortunately the invasion will be a very successful political ploy and his popularity will soar greatly, no matter how many Iraqis, whether civilians or not, are killed as long as the number of American killed is not higher than a few hundred.

Interestingly if the economy revives and he and his associates can avoid too much damage from the corporate scandals, then they might be tempted to not invade if they fear possible negative economic consequences to the invasion that could effect his reelection.

A while ago there was a discussion of moral relativism.
IMHO this type of war in which killing innocent Iraqis is a certainty and is of little consequence is just immoral. This is so, regardless of the current rationalizing of and the popularity of such wars with most Americans.

I guess all liberals are not moral relativists after all.

 

InvisibleFan,

With the reach of the Internet, we are no longer limited in our information sources.

Articles from Saudi, Iranian, Jordanian, Indian, Pakistani etc viewpoints are readily available for your reading pleasure. Sometimes you have to read about an issue from several different viewpoints and <i>triangulate</i> the location of the <i>truth</i>, but it is better than reading just straight US based sources.


Mango

 

I did see the film, and the evidence is startling. The filmmaker found 3 different Iraqi defectors, living in 3 different countries, who told the exact same story- Iraq helped fund and train Al Queda terrorists for many years. Also, they told of an incredibly active WMD program.

A jury would find Saddam guilty of helping Al Queda attack America in 5 minutes with these guys in court. Look for the film to be rerun soon on PBS.

 

Actually, we are both wrong. I said $10 to $40, but the actual spike was from $15 to $34 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. (42 on graph).

When the U.S. led forces invaded Iraq (43 on graph), the price of crude went down.

Just so we don't lose the relevance of my point, the author of the NY Times article states that we will suffer from high energy prices if we invade Iraq, and uses the Gulf War as an example. The author did not do his homework, because our invasion stabilized the oil market and brought the price down because the threat of Saddam was gone. The entire article is based on a blatently false premise.

 

Do you have any sites you'd like to list to help start me out? I'm not sure what standpoints they typically have or what tendencies they take, so any clues will help.

 

C'mon Glynch. I know Bush is not a intellectual, and his politics obviously cut against your grain, but do you really think he's going to be sitting in the Oval Office and say 'well we've got to invade now to get my popularity up' ? Personally I am not a Bush supporter but I think your assertions are unrealistic. It is much more likely that Bush ACTUALLY DOES BELIEVE Saddam needs to be taken out.

Uh, you can't possibly be saying that any war in which innocents die is immoral, are you?

And what do you mean, little consequence? If all those poor starving Iraqis the anti-sanction lobby keeps clamoring about get food, if genocide within Iraq is stopped, if FUTURE aggressive wars Saddam is likely (based on his past record) to start are removed...isn't that of major consequence SPECIFICALLY for the Iraqi people? If a despot (and not even you will dispute that I think) is removed isn't that good for the Iraqi people? AND if Iraq is prevented from acquiring weapons of mass destruction isn't THAT a major consequence of the action, and a damn good one? Even the stabilization of the world's oil supply is a SIGNIFICANT consequence. Some of you think there would be LITTLE consequence but I have to disagree. Many more innocents would be hurt by such a scenario than by an attack on Iraq.

I'm confused a little by this. It seems like some liberals are very relativist when considering the actions of another country but the US, and very normatively antagonistic when talking about the US. Its seems most inconsistent.

 

The bottom line is that it may suck they think we're some big 'imperialist' power trying to take over, but it is not the most important thing to consider. Why? Because they are wrong. IF Saddam tells lies and they believe them, that cannot stop us from taking action. IF the Middle East could take care of their own problems then we wouldn't be there now. NO power in the Middle East was capable of stopping Iraq in 1990 when they invaded Kuwait. Those countries didn't seem to care too much about US imperialism then as it was saving their asses. NO power in the Middle East will be able to stop Iraqi aggression if they acquire WMDs. Personally I feel all the talk of 'imperialism' is just tired old rhetoric regurgitated from the old North/South Non-Aligned Movement days of the Cold War. It doesn't fit now and should be discarded.

IF they are stupid enough to believe someone who has repeatedly invaded his MUSLIM neighbors that he is their FRIEND AGAINST AGGRESSION then I'm afraid they just have to live with their decision, and if getting a beat down is that consequence then so be it.

Besides, even if we have to do it without Saudi or Turkish bases, which I doubt, we can still go insane from the mem-Bharain.

 

What happens if we go ahead and attack with out any kind of support from our Arab allies, and they stop giving us information and leads to help with the war on terrorism?

The increased anger from fundementalists at the U.S. for launching and unprovoked invasion on Iraq increases, and the amount of people willing to join terrorist organizations increases. There are terrorists coming out of the wood work, and more attacks on the U.S.

Only this time people aren't as sympathetic to our plight and we don't get the same cooperation that we have now from 'moderate' Arab govts.

Then we are screwed. We've just made the situation worse for us for generations to come. Do we want to have to live in constant threat of attack on the same level that Israel does?

If Iraq is such a threat surely his neighbors would feel that more than the U.S. Yet Kuwait who was Iraq's object of conquest ten years ago, is against an attack.

Maybe Saddam should be taken out, but I think we should really concentrate first on this war against terrorism. Mullah Omar and Bin Laden may still be at large. Al Qaeda is still active, etc. Shouldn't we concentrate on thing at a time?

If Al Qaeda and Saddam are now allied, as some people believe, then the U.S. has managed to make two long-time enemies become friends in order to attack the U.S. That happened without an invasion of Iraq, just think how unified all the organizations might get should we invade Iraq, without provocation.

Do you really think that our security against terrorism is adequate now? It will have to be increased even more if we undertake this war. I don't think that the agencies have their current ideas fully implemented with the present risk factor. Just imagine how much worse it will get.

Another scary point... What if we go in there and win. How many years will our troops have to be stationed in that hostile region while a govt that seems suitable to the U.S. is set up. Once it is set up, it seems ripe for antagonism from it's neighbors who would be upset about the invasion to begin with. Troops will then have to kept there to protect the new govt. It will basically become a U.S. colony. Our troops will be vulnerable to attacks there, and who's to say that the new govt. will be any better?

Remember Saddam was once an ally of the U.S. So was Noriega.

When the U.S. got rid of Noriega Panama still doesn't have a democracy, drug traffic through the canal actually INCREASED. The U.S doesn't have a good record after invading countries.

These are just some worries to think about on top of all the lives, both American and other, that will be lost, and whatever the war costs will add to an already enomorous debt.

Plus like I said before, it would be ashamed to see the country I love that would normally protect other countries from agressors all of a sudden turn around and become the aggressor itself.

Remember this invasion wouldn't be self defense. Iraq hasn't attacked us. It's unprovoked aggression. I guess that doesn't appeal to some people's morality and if that's the government people want then I guess they have to accept the bad that comes from it, such as terrorism, increased hatred from other countries around the world etc.

 

First, it is not unprovoked. Saddam got a lease on his control of Iraq when he agreed to multiple conditions at the end of the Gulf War. He has violated the terms of his lease. Time to evict his ass.

Second, your arguments about Arab support (ie why isn't Kuwait behind an invasion) go in a circle. They cannot publicly support the US over an Arab out of fear of a fundamentalist backlash (or so they contend).

Third, if we take care of Iraq there is no need for US troops in Saudi Arabia, resolving the biggest issue Al Queda et al have with the US.

Fourth, don't confuse the increase in volunteers for Palestinian terrorism with the number of terrorist volunteers to attack the US. There is no indication of an influx of volunteers to carry out suicide runs in the US.

Fifth, there is no reason the PLO or Hamas, or other such organizations, who have specific goals, would join in some general attack on the US as a result of an invasion of Iraq.

Sixth, very little time would have to be spent by US troops in Iraq. Once Saddam's hold is broken there is no indication the military or other elites in Iraq would attempt to restore him to power. In fact it would be quite a boon for them to hand over Saddam and then watch the cash flow back into Iraq as sanctions etc are lifted.

 

I agree that he has brokent those agreements. However Saddam has since said he'd be willing to talk about allowing inspectors back in etc. I'm of the opinion that you don't use military force unless you are attacked and as a last resort. We haven't been attacked by Iraq.

Well Kuwait wasn't afraid of the backlash when Iraq invaded their country before. If they are more afraid of a fundamentalist backlash than they are Saddam that says to me the fundamentalists where many of the terrorists come from are a bigger threat than Saddam is. Again I think we should concentrate on that rather than invading Iraq.

But an attack on Iraq would most likely give them a new biggest issue with the U.S.

I agree there isn't at the moment. I'm afraid that would change if we invaded Iraq. Whether you agree that it's an unprovoked attack on Iraq or not, certainly most people in the Arab world would see it as an unprovoked attack.

True but there are other organizations that might inrease efforts to attack the U.S. and possibly even new groups that would spring up after such an attack.

It's not Saddam coming back to power so much, as perhaps fundamentalist groups trying to gain power. Iran might try and seize the opportunity to sway Iraq to a more religious form of govt. Our troops are still in Bosnia even though should have only had to have been there a year. A basically unilateral invasion of Iraq seems like a much stickier situation than the UN coalition on the ground in Bosnia where U.S. troops aren't even the brunt of the force on the ground there.

Iraq is surrounded by an old enemy Iran which will have to be watched. The unpopularity of a U.S. puppet govt. in that region will certainly make things unstable.

Yes ideally money would start flowing back to the Iraqi people that Saddam has been stealing from, but things didn't improve for the poor people of Panama after that U.S. invasion.

 

Even Kofi Annan has now said there will be no more discussions with Iraq about inspectors because they are a waste of time.

So you don't believe the US should have intervened in Bosnia? After all, we were not attacked. Should we have not intervened in Haiti? We weren't attacked. Saying you only attack when attacked first ties our hands in foreign policy, and immediately makes whatever deterrent we provide for our allies irrelevant. Not a good idea.

I think its more about credibility than an actual fundamentalist revolution. For some reason they are more concerned about posturing as our friends but not our friends than securing permanent stability. Easy for them to do since they know the US would come in and save them again if they were attacked. In the meantime our permanent presence there, made necessary by the lack of will to remove Saddam, is costing us big time. See 9/11.

Not reason to believe this is true. Even Al Queda's main gripe is our permanent stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia because its considered HOLY LAND. Iraq is not.

Even if the Arab world saw this as an unprovoked attack, what is the impact of that? More terrorism? I doubt it. For those Arabs that DO buy into the 'imperialist US' theory, one more intervention isn't going to make them MORE fanatical than they already are.

Like who? And why would they not already be in operation? And why would they be MORE likely to attack the US now? With the Israel situation, the invasion of Afghanistan, the US forces stationed in Saudi Arabia, the previous attacks on Iraq anyone who is going to do it more than likely already has.

And the impact of an increase in terrorism is dwarfed by the impact we will see if Saddam stays in power. That is a certainty versus pure speculative risk. The choice is easy.

How could a fundamentalist regime similar to Iran's be any worse than Saddam? Iran has not been the best harbinger of peace (see terrorism sponsership), but they haven't invaded anyone lately. If your worst case happens we are not any worse off. If any result better than that happens, we are. The odds say do it.

Actually, as Afghanistan has shown, unilateral action is always easier than multilateral. No one to coordinate with or seek approval from. No confusion about what the mission is, or political infighting. If we had INVADED Serbia it might be a different story. We're talking about totally different operations. And keep in mind that there are already many ready to come forward once Saddam is taken out. The US is not going to have to stay permanently for peace keeping operations.

More unstable than Saddam makes them? How is that POSSIBLE? He invaded Iran, he invaded Kuwait, he would have invaded Saudi Arabia. What can be more unstable than that? And if the regime WAS fundamentalist like in Iran, there wouldn't be too much conflict between Iran/Iraq at least, and probably none between Saudi/Iran/Iraq and Kuwait. Hell, a fundamentalist regime might even be preferrable to a PERCEIVED US puppet government. Then the Arabs wouldn't have anything to gripe about.

I disagree. If you'd like to debate the actual merits of the US intervention into Panama, start another thread and we'll hit it. As it is it has limited application to this debate, since the scope of the threat is SO much larger in the Iraqi situation.

 

I do if he is harboring terrorists or has aided them financially.

DaDakota

 

Sorry Hayes, I can only address this one point now, and I'll try and address the rest tomorrow if I can.

We didn't invade Bosnia, we sent troops there as part of a multi-lateral force. The Haiti thing still had negotiations going on at the time. I think we could have waited.

Only attacking in Self defense would still be a good deterent I think. No one would want to attack us or they face retribution. As far as our allies go I believe coming to the aid of other countries that suffer at the hand of aggressors could be OK.

To become the aggressor oneself, however, seems wrong and immoral to me. Of course other people have the right to differ and plenty do differ in that opinion.