I didnt mean to imply that you said it. I was just making a point that Bush says something to the nation, but has alternative plans. Some posters here assume that it is only about overthrowing Saddam and putting an end to terrorism, when there are 100 other factors involved. I would have no problem with a war if Saddam was the only reason. Unfortunately, many people I know are already on a boat to Iraq. Its sad that their lives could be taken because of economic gains instead of freedom from terrorism.
I agree that there are multiple reasons why we would go to war w/Iraq. Ther certainly is much disagreement over 1) what is motivating Bush and 2) whether it's 'right' for us to got ot war. Item 1 is discussed ad nauseum, but I think that is suboridinate to Item 2. I made a brief list for myself of possible reasons, the magnistude of their impact, the probability of them occurring, and whether each is a 'trigger' event. I am not entirely comfortable with a war at this time, but I believe that with Sadam's instransigence, it will not be avoided unless there is a coup.
So: We Win. What Next? Nice of you to make all the assumptions that everything goes perfectly, but the real world doesn't work that way. What if... There are lots of US casualties? Iraq uses WMD on Israel? The Iraqi factions don't successfully create a democracy and you have civil war between the factions? US Troops are stuck there for years on peacemaking missions? There are a thousand things that might not go according to plan, and its silly to make all the best assumptions and then say "look how easy it will be". That's not to say we shouldn't go to war with Iraq -- just that it's not nearly as clear cut as you make it sound. We're going to go into Iraq without a clear exit strategy -- one of Powell's least favorite things in the world. Oh sure, we say we have one, but the reality is we have no way to predict how long or how difficult the road to Democracy in a country and region that has never experienced it will be. And without that knowledge, we can't have a legitimate exit strategy unless we plan to abandon Iraq if things don't go to plan.
Major, I think some higher-ups really must think (know?) Saddam will be 'gone' before we have to go house-to-house in Baghdad.
Turkey faces terrorism from nationalist Kurdish factions. Their numbers in Turkey are around 2-3 million. The US has already stated that it will not allow a Kurdish nation and that it's not on the table. Let's say we shoehorn a 'democracy' onto multiethnic people and the current ruling majority is not Kurdish nor does it have Kurdish interests. Now that Saddam is deposed, the Kurds will definitely want more power after being oppressed for many years longer than the Palestinians. Other nations such as Syria, Turkey, and Iran generally oppress their Kurdish minority. Wouldn't those Kurds emigrate to Iraq because it's the best chance to live their way? If an independent state is out of the question, wouldn't the Kurds create a political block of their own to vie for their own interests? Then other minorities like the Shi'ites would feel intimidated and look towards Iran. The problem is that Iraq's borders are arbitrarily drawn. The groups in these borders shares no ties or bonds with each other. It's nation building without the nationalistic pride or loyalty towards the greater cause. If that's the case, only self serving interests for "their people" would be the political motive in this government. Neighboring countries will also look towards land acquisition through identifying ethnic groups. Syria, Jordan, Iran, and even Kuwait could look to increase their boundaries. The reasons would be twofold. A weaker neighbor with vast oil reserves and a stronger nation with more oil reserves. Kuwait was caught slant drilling into Iraqi territory which was one of the causes for the Gulf War. Iraq is already an imposing neighbor like Iran. Arab countries do not neccesarily want it to succeed. What all of this adds up to is an increased US or UN millitary presense for an indefinite period of time, something contrary to the wishes of the Bush Administration.
A frightening thing to remember is that 350,000 children at the minimum have died due to the US pushed embargo. I know that if one of those had been my child that I would waiting with my gun loaded to greet the US "saviours".
Treeman- Do you have any ideas on how many troops will stay in Iraq after the initial campaign is over? What plans does the U.S. military have in protecting Iraq's future Democracy? Will Iraq drop out of OPEC in order to set a low price on their oil for a quick rebuilding of a new economy? Anyone know how that might work? TJ? Do you know where the Hanging Gardens are? Will their be a cleanup of all the munitions debris, land mines, etc.? What % of the population do you think supports a Democracy? How many poor and oppressed are there in Iraq in comparison to how many are in power surrounding Saddam(# in the Ba'ath party)? How soon will the sanctions be lifted and food and medicine brought into Iraq? How close will we get to the Iranian border? Good luck and God bless you, our soldiers and the families of Iraq.
I guess that whole "Oil for Food/Drugs" program wasn't too effective? Could there be just a little corruption? It's more like "Oil for Weapons". Without a US "pushed" embargo how many of these 350,000 would have died anyways due to the horrible conditions in Iraq? Can you post some links to these facts, I haven't read anything stating that many have died. To blame all of these deaths on the "US pushed" embargo is nuts. It is sad that any child has to die, the problem isn't the embargo, it's the man who caused the embargo to be imposed on his own country. If the people weren't so brainwashed they wouldn't hate the US, they would hate Saddam.
Tactical nukes? No. Didn't mean to imply that, not necessary. Invisible fan: Indefinite military presence - yes. By design, too.We are going to keep our army there until the region is stabilized, not just Iraq. right1: how many troops will stay in Iraq after the initial campaign is over? Quite a few. As I've said before, Iraq is just the beginning of this equation. The real goal is to change the entire region. protecting Iraq's future Democracy? Paramount importance. Sociopolitical change throughout the region is absolutely necessary if we are to win the war on terrorism. It will begin in Iraq, and it must succeed there in order to work anywhere else. They have the best chance at succeeding in secular development. Will Iraq drop out of OPEC... Possible, but unlikely. It will likely counter Saudi et al in their efforts to keep prices high, though. They will have more influence if they stay in OPEC. Will their be a cleanup... Certainly. We always clean up our portion of the battlefield afterwards. Could take a while, though. What % of the population do you think supports a Democracy? Obviously, Saddam isn't polling this question to the Iraqi public... But it is likely very high. Some shiites would prefer a theocracy, but I would exspect the overwhelming majority (regardless of ethnic/religious group) to be supportive of democracy. Remember, though, that implementing a full democracy may take some time. How many poor and oppressed are there in Iraq in comparison to how many are in power surrounding Saddam The middle class has been steadily shrinking over the past couple of decades, but one still exists there. The Ba'ath party lists many members (it's a good career move in Iraq), but as far as hardcore party members go (those who are dependent upon Saddam and vice versa) probably number no more that 10,000, including his internal security service. How soon will the sanctions be lifted and food and medicine brought into Iraq? I would imagine we would want this to happen very quickly, like within no more than a couple of months (hopefully weeks or days). We will want to begin relief efforts immediately. How close will we get to the Iranian border? Which side? ... If change doesn't occur there, we may go after them next. After all, Iranian intelligence makes Al Qaeda look like a bunch of choir boys, and they did start the whole "Death to the Great Satan!" thingy... And until 9/11, they were responsible for more US deaths by terrorism than anyone else. Their terror training bases are still up and running, too. But hopefully a domestic revolution (a secular one this time) will occur there, as is not at all unlikely.
I wonder, why is it that with all these threads talking about ME problems, why no one brings up Saudi Arabia? Afterall, OBL is Saudi and some of the 9/11 wackos were Saudi, true? Then I read this article concerning the large numbers of Saudi citizens that are willing to join Iraq in their battles against "The Great Satan" If our aims are to help stablize the ME, how is this even possible considering the Islam proscription to assist fellow Muslim states if they are attacked? Seems to me that if there are a large number of radical Islamic fighters in neighboring countries that subscribe to this interpretation of Islamic law, we could just be inflaming tensions by embarking on a war that is looked upon as unjustified... Thoughts?
Here is a BBC article stating that the embargo is responsible for deaths of 500,000 children. Here is an article comparing death rate before and after the embargo: Embargo has doubled infant deaths in Iraq: UN official Human Rights Watch article on the Iraq Embargo For the Iraqi citizens to blame the US for the results of the embargo may not be "so nuts" after all.
treeman- Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions . It does seem as if students and the younger generation of Iranians want Democratic rule. I'm not aware of the sentiments of the Saudi populace. Where do Egypt, Syria and Lebanon fit into the equation? What ties does China have to all of this? It has been reported that 350,000 children have died because of a lack of food and medicine. How much do you know about Saddam's rebuilding of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and other palaces, projects and shrines to himself? Has he not spent billions on his own personal construction since the Gulf War? Surely, if this is the case, the Ba'ath party will not have much support from the majority of the population and Democracy will be welcomed. I guess it depends on how much they've been brainwashed? let's see if these links work. Iraqi support for regime change- www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2002/joct/7_aftersaddam.html www.iraqfoundation.org/studies/2002/cnov/6_claim.html
Wow. That is bad. Thanks for the links. I really thought that the "Oil for Food Program" by the UN was providing some type of relief. Corruption is horrible in Iraq and the funds don't seem to be reaching the people. Link Don't you think that the people should be freed? Saddam brought this upon himself and his country. He has the money to live so lavishly while his people starve, it is horrible.
I've read that Rumsfeld wants to invade and leave as quickly as possible as soon as their country is rebuilt. Powell recently voiced the same sentiment. Of course this could all be strategic spin, but how likely are the Middle Eastern neighbors going to tolerate the US presence over there in light of all the anti-American sentiment plus the growing terror factions sprouting in their countries? On the other end, how long will Americans tolerate another costly American presence (Afghanistan costs 1 billion a month for the American side to operate and that's considered underfunded), plus the terror threats to home and abroad in light of the psuedo-imperialist scenario? Sure if we were to use the Iraqi oil to cover some operating expenses, it wouldn't be as bad economically, but then it would be more fodder for the anti-Imperialist/West crowd to feed upon. If what you're saying is true and their intent is to clean up the neighborhood, then these officials pretty smart not to tip them off from the onset, but in doing so, they're playing a very dangerous gamble on both sides of the table.
Saddam spends money on Palestinians rather than on Iraqis. <A HREF="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html">Saddam stokes war with suicide bomber cash March 26 2002</A> <b>The Iraqi leader's payments to the families of dead Palestinian terrorists means more trouble for Yasser Arafat</b> <i>The hall was packed and the intake of breath was audible as a special announcement was made to the war widows of the West Bank - Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people.<b> The men at the top table then opened Saddam's chequebook and, as the names of 47 martyrs were called, family representatives went up to sign forcheques written in US dollars. </b>Those of two suicide bombers were the first to be paid the new rate of $US25,000 and those whose relatives had died in other clashes with the Israeli military were given $US10,000 each. <b> The $US500,000 doled out in this impoverished community yesterday means that the besieged Iraqi leader now has contributed more than $US10 million to grieving Palestinian families since the new intifada began 18 months ago. </b>But the timing of this clear signal that Saddam is stoking the Middle East conflict with his new $US15,000 bonus to encourage more suicide bombers - and exclusive pictures from the distribution ceremony, which was attended by the Herald - could make it more difficult for the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, to manage his already strained relationship with the United States. ......But he may be hard pressed to deny knowledge of a public ceremony on his own territory, during which supporters of Saddam handed out $US500,000 and encouraged others to become suicide bombers with the blessing of the Iraqi leader. ....Yesterday's ceremony at Tulkarm, about 90 kilometres north of Jerusalem, was the first public distribution organised by the Arab Liberation Front, a small PLO faction closely aligned with Saddam's Ba'ath Party. Previously, the cheques were delivered privately by officials of the front to the homes of martyr families. A senior front official, Ma'amoon Tayeh, said that the extra $US15,000 was to encourage more Palestinians to volunteer as suicide bombers to help "confirm the legitimacy of our national questions". He said: "Saddam Hussein considers Palestine to be a governate of Iraq and he thinks the same of the Palestinian martyrs as he does of Iraqi martyrs - they all are martyrs for the whole Arab nation." <b> Dr Hassan Khraisheh, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council who told the crowd he had just returned from a solidarity conference in Baghdad, said some families believed the money should be sent back to Iraq because of the hardships imposed by sanctions;</b> others used the money to " buy weapons to defend Palestine". Later, he praised Iraq as the only Arab country officially donating to the Palestinian cause. "The Saudis used to give $US4000 to the martyrs, but now it depends on public donations. "Saddam Hussein's $US25,000 is a message to those who might offer themselves as martyrs that their families will be supported .."</i>
You make it sound like the BBC made some kind of claim, which is very misleading, No Worries. You understand quotes, right? You should have said 'Here is a BBC Article quoting European activists who state that the embargo....' I believe that there exists some disgreement over who's responsible for withholding food from those children.
