Iraq

I see that several people have voted without posting. Which is fine. But I wanted to go on the record.

I voted for going ahead, but only with UN and Congressional approval. As much of a dove as I am, I recognize that war is sometimes necessary. It may be the case that it's necessary here, although I share the feeling among many people in this country, in this Congress and around the world that there has been virtually zero evidence suggesting it's more urgent to go in now than it was five years ago, four year ago, yesterday or five years from now.

First, Congress must be convinced. That should be a given. We owe it to the people who will actually do the fighting to be united in what the strong majority of this country feels is a just and winnable war. So Congressional approval is necessary, but not necessarily instructive.

I am also okay, in certain situations, with the idea of acting outside the UN. But not in the case of regime change. Not ever. If the community of nations can agree that Saddam has to go, I will back it. I am as concerned about terrorism as any of you. And I believe that, if we are going to effect a regime change, we must do it with the favor of world opinion or invite further anti-American sentiment and, with it, further terrorism.

And, of course, when considering whether or not the UN should have a voice in this decision we must always remember that Saddam's only in violation of UN resolutions -- he doesn't have a deal with us. The UN should demand immediate (notice I don't suggest a three week warning first, as the Germans do) inspections. They should effect a zero tolerance policy towards any weapons in violation of the resolution and, if they find weapons in violation, they should utilize whatever money and whatever manpower it takes to ensure that those weapons are destroyed and never replaced. They should clearly explain to Saddam that the next time that they catch him producing or seeking weapons of mass destruction in violation of the resolution, they will unleash the US on him, with their full moral and military support. And they should explain that the next time they catch him with a chemical or biological weapon, he will be removed.

That's the compromise. It's not sanctions, it's not business as usual and it's not a messy, expensive (in money and blood), arrogant war. As I've heard it framed, Bush will tell the UN they have one last chance to enforce their resolution. The UN should take that seriously and they should enforce it. I've held off expressing an opinion, as I expected the president (or at least Tony Blair) to produce promised evidence of imminent danger. They haven't. If they do, my opinion might change. As it stands, that's my vote and that's why.

 

I put "no". Nobody's convinced me of a Clear and Present Danger that requires action right now. I still don't see what's changed to make it so gosh-darned important to take the guy down now.

I'm also just not a fan of toppling regimes in general.

I'm for a world with no Saddam Hussein as the next guy, but I've not seen any compelling evidence that: 1. something has to be done now, and 2. we have to be the someone to do it.

Like Batman, if somebody shows me some compelling evidence of imminent danger, my mind could be changed.

 

Am I the only one aware of the Kurdish Genocide that occured in Iraq? I think the world can live without Mr. Hussein. Even though this man has attempted to assassinate a US President, invade a country, produce ties to the first WTC bombing, harbor terror camps as well as weapons of mass destruction not to mention sending money to terror families we should give this guy another chance? Its been a few years since the weapons inspectors have been allowed in this country. Is there any reason to believe this man is going to change for the better. It seems Saddam is doing everything in his power to look like a good guy in this conflict except of course allow weapons inspectors back in. Make no mistake people this is a state headed by a dictator who hates America. Who most likely has the ability to be an even greater threat than Bin Laden if given enough time to attack us. This man should be arrested and tried in an international court for war crimes.

 

Smoke them if you got them.
Screw them..

 

Lets blast the ****er out of this universe.

 

I don't want to sound ungratefull or anything, but if the US go to war with Iraq, and Australia commits troops, there better not be a conscription!! I think it would be stupid and idiotic of PM John Howard, Australia has an ageing population, and the average age is skyrocketing because no one is having any kids anymore, so sending young men (and possibly women) off to war would only worsen the situation.

I understand that you should do what you can for your country, but I don't think I could face war. And I'm sure that a person who has been in the army for many years would rather have an experienced soldier fighting next to him, rather than a guy whose been snapped up and shipped out.

 

I vote to do it now. As much as I hate war, I feel that at some point he will get the nukes he so badly wants and will have no problems sending them our way.
I would love to peacefully settle things but I think this is one case where Saddam understands only one thing and unfortunately its bullets.

 

I voted for war with approval of congress, and the UN. I think that if both of those bodies could be convinced then there must be valid reason.

On a more national level I wonder how in favor of this war people would be if there was still a draft.

 

I voted to attack with UN and Congressional approval, however, I'm not so sure that we are going to do an all out invasion.

I'm still of the opinion that Bush is bluffing in order to get Saddam to allow weapons inspectors back in. In order for the bluff to work it has to be credible and, so far, I think that pretty much everyone believes that Bush is hell-bent on doing it. Don't get me wrong, we may attack Iraq with planes but I really don't believe that the U.S. (or anyone else for that matter) is going to invade and occupy that country. The logistics would be overwhelming.

It's all a game of "good cop/bad cop" with the U.S. (and Great Britain?) as the bad cop and the rest of the world playing good cop. Iraq is already reaching out to Europe and other countries in the Middle East for help because they are genuinely concerned about being attacked. The other countries will help Iraq avoid an all out war - but with conditions. The U.S. is going to make sure that those conditions (whatever they may be – weapons inspectors? The eventual removal of Saddam?) are met unconditionally.

Granted, if the bluff doesn't work, we'll have to use some military force but something has to be done and it's better to be pro-active about it then reactive.

 

Pretty much my thoughts also...

I voted to attack now. I would like the approval of Congress and the UN also, but who knows how long that will take. I fear that most people won't endorse attacking Iraq until it is too late. This guy is a Hitler waiting to happen.

 

What does UN approval really mean? The general body or just the UN Security Council? Getting a majority consensus from the general body aint going to happen. Without a lot of behind-the-scenes political deals, I don't even see the Security Council buying into this. Thus, all of you who have voted YES with UN approval have really voted NO.

The truth is that the Bush Jr Admin may likely invade Iraq, with or without UN approval. Getting UN approval appears to only be an exercise in diplomancy (rarely charted territory for the Bush Jr Admin).

Yesterday I heard a White House spokesperson label Iraq as an "emerging" threat. I am very suspicious of Bush Jr's real motives here, since the whole Iraq invasion issue (if not the invasion itself) is falling late into the Congresional election cycle. (It appears that Bush Jr is pulling a Clinton by using a military action for what appears to be only a domestic political gain.)

Needless to say, I voted NO. I have seen no emerging threat from Iraq. I have seen no link between the acts of 9/11 and Iraq. Extending the War on Terrorism to include Iraq lacks any logical foundation.

Iraq with Sadam at its head does add political instability to the Middle East region. But so do Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, and Iran (in no order). Should we invade all of these countries? Is it our responsibility to fix the problems in the Middle East? Can using US military force in that region really add to the political stability in the long term? Will military action make it more or less likely that the US will see future terrorist acts sponsered from that region? The Bush Jr Admin should answer these questions before commiting US troups, but sadly won't since there is no political gain from doing so.

 

I voted do it now only because theere wasn't a do it 6 months ago choice. That being said I am truly looking forward to the 'proof' that President Bush will publicly unveil tomorrow. I need no convincing but I pray that the proof he displays is strong enough to sway even the left-most Americans.

 

Eh, I don't really think those options are adequate. I'm not necessarily opposed to unilateral action... but I also want to be sure that such a war would really be necessary.

For me, it all hinges on whether Bush/Chaney are really more concerned with oil or WMD. With the elder Bush, it was definitely oil (and I don't actually dislike the elder Bush). What is it this time? While such a war might be in the nation's best short-term interest, the angst that we'd be creating would render the action a bad long-term choice. And, of course, there are all those nasty conflict-of-interest issues that are hard to discern the veracity of since we have neither the real "evidence" against Iraq nor a keyhole into Bush's brain.

So, I don't care that much about UN approval, etc... but I do care about the "facts of the case" that we cannot know.

 

I think Iraq will cave under the presure, but we need to work with Iraq and not against them. They didn't want to be our mortal enemies. It just happened. And that can change. There are much better ways to resolve this conflict and help ease the tension in the middle east at the same time. It's all about oil.

 

I don't understand how people cannot consider Hussein a global threat. It appears that a lot of people are taking the stance that he is an evil despot, but he's not evil enough to use the nuclear weapons everybody knows he covets so much. I think it's pretty apparent that if he had the technology, he would not delay in using it against someone, likely the US. Plus he has been in violation of the tenants of the Gulf War 'treaty' for virtually the past 5 years. Wasn't unlimited weapons inspections a key part of the agreement? Yet he has been allowed to violate it without much more than a slap on the wrist. Not to mention there is circumstantial evidence linking him to Al Queda and the 9/11 attack that hopefully will be substantiated by Tony Blair or George W in the coming days or weeks.

I voted to go in with the support of Congress. Ultimately, the American Government is held accountable by the citizens of one country, the USA. I agree that it's largely a diplomatic gesture to seek the approval of the UN, but I don't feel it's necessary based on the anti-America population that seems to dominate the organization. Let me ask you this, if Iraq invaded or attacked another Middle Eastern country, who do you think the UN would turn to to bail them out without batting an eyelash? That's right, the good ole USA. So we are seen as the world's policemen, when it is convenient for the world.

 

I voted to go to war with Congressional approval only. I would like to have the UN backing although I do not feel it is necessary.

 

I would hope for both Congressional and UN support, but I don't really expect the UN to help out here. Call me naive, but I dont believe that Saddam has the means to attack us personally. He has no ICBMs and thats what it would take for him to hit us from there. I would hope that we could have tight enuff security on our borders to stop anyone tryin to carry in a dirty bomb (which is the only other way he could hit us).
If someone can produce some credible evidence that says Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, well then my views will change. If the evidence says he did, then change my vote to Congressional approval only.

 

We were all pretty sure the Russians were going to nuke someone but they didnt. Should we have bombed the USSR?

I need proof before I am going to back these guys, but if the UN and Congress are behind it, then I'm ok with it. I dont like the idea of Bush and Co just going for it.