War with Iraq

[YoungBlood]

ahhhhh, I get it, we're going to beat up the weakling because we know he can't fight back and be afraid of the stronger guy.....which we actually happen to be much stronger than

 

The point is, NK is a serious threat to us and the world. Saddam has been under our thumb for 12 years and is contained. NK is the greater threat. Our resources nned to be pointed in that direction.

 

No, we are going to beat up the weakling before he can become the next NK. The point is, Saddam is not under our thumb and will soon be just as dangerous as NK. Why don't we deal with Saddam now before we have another NK to worry about?

 

I would certainly agree with you that North Korea is probably the greater threat. However, every beast needs to be dealt with differently and we are dealing with them now.

[SR540Beaver]

Youngblood, of course I don't mean I want another 9/11. I meant that we had all the damning evidence we needed with the WTC. Before our country becomes an aggressor nation attacking others, we need to have defensible justification for it. Cold hard facts like we had in 9/11. So far, we keep getting told that Saddam has WMD's......but no verifiable proof. It is a dangerous step for our country to take to start a war based on suspicions.

 

As to your second post, Saddam is not gong to become the next NK. We have a northern and southern fly zone established over his country. We bomb targets every single day and have for the last 12 years. Their are sanctions in place that controls what goes in and out of his country to keep him from having the ability to build and stockpile weapons. He has been unable to rebuild his military. He is contained and under our thumb. We have already prevented him from being the next NK and will continue to do so.

[NJCubScouter]

First of all:

 

I think this is to kwc: Israel is very concerned about Iraq and has been for a longer period than the U.S. Others have mentioned the Scud attacks during the Desert Storm, when Israel sat idly by at our request, while deadly missiles rained down on its soil. I was very upset about that, but I understood at that time that it was important to keep the "coalition" together. There will be no such coalition this time, even if we do have a few allies (UK, Poland, Qatar, whoever) helping us out. We should never ask an ally to do what we asked Israel to do back then.

 

Also don't forget that it was Israel that sent bombers to destroy Iraq's nuclear reactor, in order to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons. Think about that. Iraq was our buddy then, because Iran wasn't.

 

Korea: It was Benjamin Franklin who replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." The framers of the Constitution would not have used the word "democracy." It was not considered a complimentary term at the time. It really came into vogue around the time of Andrew Jackson, at which time the "Republican" party of Thomas Jefferson changed its name to "Democratic Republican" and finally "Democratic."

 

Now, to the issue. I do not like Saddam Hussein. I would like him out. I wish that our president's father had listened to that great son of the Garden State, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, in 1991, and not stopped our tanks and troops until they had sent Hussein fleeing through the desert with his wives. They were, literally, on a roll. They had the whole Iraqi army surrendering in front of them. I realize it is not that simple. But if there was ever a time to do it, I think that was the time.

 

My feelings about this are very mixed. Iraq is only one of a number of countries that I would, if I could do it without risking American lives, subject to "regime change." Let's see, a partial list would include China; North Korea; every nation in the Middle East except Israel; Zimbabwe. Really, any nation where the people have no say in their government and the government murders its citizens as a means of political control. Pakistan might deserve to be on the list too; it does become a bit complicated, because their dictator is our buddy at the moment.

 

The nation on the top of the list was the one that harbored and supported the murderers of thousands of Americans about 16 months ago. We took care of it, we put in a new regime, now we're just mopping up. So that nation is off the list, though based on its history, it may be back someday.

 

But I don't know how Iraq got to the top of that long list. I also think that the claims that this is a crisis requiring immediate action, are blunted by the fact that it is now about 14 months since our president first raised the idea of attacking Iraq. If it's such a crisis, you don't wait 14 months. Yes, we were a bit busy in Afghanistan for the first few of those months. But in a true crisis, we do have the ability to fight multiple enemies at once. We have done it before, against enemies with far more firepower than the combined forces of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar. (Remember him? The one-eyed guy?)

 

So, do I want Saddam Hussein out? Sure. Can I justify sending my neighbors' children out to do the job, with some never to return? It's very difficult. If it were up to me, I think I wouldn't do it.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[mk9750]

On another thread, someone mentioned how prevelent it is that people are conservative on some issues, and liberal on others. This is a perfect example in my case. I am staunchly conservative, and although I am a declared independant, and will and have voted for a Democrat, my general leaning is hard right. I believe GW IS the right man for our country, and am glad he was elected. This feeling only increased because of the way he handled 9/11.

 

But I can't figure out what our real reason is for the potential attack on Iraq. As with everyone else here, I believe Irag, and more specifically, Saddam, is bad for their region, and for the world. But I haven't seen ANYTHING that makes me stray from my belief that another nation's soveirenty should be attacked. Milosovich was just as much a tyrant, or more, than is Saddam, and we allowed him to continue for years and years before he forced our hand to do something. The USSR in general was a terrible threat to peace for years and years, and we never did anything about them militarily. Dictatorships in South America and elsewhere are further examples.

 

Believe me, I think the best thing would be to remove Sadddam from the picture. But just like I think it would be great for the neighborhood bully to get his due, unless he threatened me or my family directly, I don't think I would be justified in doing anything more than protecting the neighborhood from his tyranny. I certainly don't have the right to storm his house and make him pay for what he might do in the future.

 

I realize that classified information might be the key to GW's decision. It's just that I don't get that feeling. Empty wareheads that could be used? Is that really enough to disregard another country's soveirenty? I just don't see the evidence, and don't get the warm and fuzzies that it's there but just not available to the general public. And other major countries don't see it either (yeah, I know France has always been a weenie, but they're not the only one).

 

As for the likelohood of success, KS, I agree with what I think you are saying. Technology alone would make us so far superior that it's almost unfair. But I think we had that same superiority in Viet Nam, but with no national will to fight this one, which I believe that this sampling of opinion suggests, are we headed for another Viet Nam? I hope not.

 

I pray that God will inspire those who must make such decisions to deliberate very carefully before we commit ourselves to something like this. Wars must be fought, I know. And if they must be fought, we should do everything necesary to win. But if this one isn't needed, I'd much rather avoid it.

 

Mark

[mk9750]

I missed one point.

 

If it is tracking down and eliminating terrorism that is the reason, than both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia appear to be more inportant targets right now.

 

Mark

[KoreaScouter]

Sorry about the misquote, NJ -- I should have taken the extra minute to confirm it on Google...but I hope you got my point nonetheless.

 

I was stationed in Europe from '93 to '96, when atrocities in the Former Yugoslavia were at their height, and troops from my unit guarded the hospital in Zagreb, Croatia from '94 until after I left in '96. I think your characterization of our role in that crisis is somewhat inaccurate. Early on, even when the Europeans knew ethnic cleansing was taking place, they sat on their hands (sound familiar?). The UN then tried sending in peacekeepers, when there was no peace yet, with both hands tied behind their backs. My unit in the Netherlands trained with the same Dutch Army unit that was deployed around Srebenica, and was forced to watch as the Serbs dragged the men and boys away to be shot and buried in mass graves -- no support from their immediate superior, who was...you guessed it, French! Our ultimate involvement after that 3-ring circus brought about the stable, if not optimal situation that exists there today. Sometimes we seem schizophrenic in our collective self-criticism. We beat ourselves up for being "interventionist", then in the next breath, we beat ourselves up again for "not doing anything" about a crisis somewhere.

 

I'm not really interested in being lectured on peace and being a good neighbor by the Germans, either. I guess they only want to fight if the war has "World" at the beginning of the name. At any rate, their Chancellor ran on the platform he's standing on now, so no big surprise.

 

Seriously, if you haven't read the transcript of the Wolfowitz speech, I strongly recommend you do so.

 

KS

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

KS,

 

Funny, those German seemed to be on the wrong end of those World Wars. Maybe we don't want their help, they don't seem to know how to win.

[NJCubScouter]

I heard on the radio that General Norman Schwarzkopf said, last night or this morning (i.e. after the latest report from the U.N. inspectors) that the U.S. should give the inspectors more time to work, and that war in Iraq is not inevitable, and might not be necessary.

 

I find it pretty persuasive that a someone with Schwarzkopf's military record is saying this. I definitely trust him more than the politicians on all sides of the issue. And for the record, whenever i have heard the general make any sort of political remark, it has been pro-Republican, or at the very least anti-Clinton. So he has no political ax to grind against the president. He just isn't sure that this is the cause into which we should commit the lives of American service-people, and neither am I.

[Rooster7]

To my knowledge, President Bush never said, "war in Iraq is not inevitable". He's certainly not happy with Sadam Hussein's response, prompting the President to say that America will not back down. Nothing in your post denoting Schwarzkopf's comments seems to contradict these sentiments. Furthermore, I accept that the President may know that what he's able to say. For example, if the Iraqi's were hiding a nuclear lab of some sort, which contained materials to make a bomb, it would be foolish for the U.S. to tell them that we are aware of its location. This would merely prompt the Iraqi's to move the materials and to deny it. There's no guarantee that our satellites or our intelligence people would be able to track its movement successfully. Consequently, the President would be putting American military personnel at extreme risk by making certain facts public. I trust him and our current government officials to analyze the situation properly and to act accordingly.

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says:

 

I trust him and our current government officials to analyze the situation properly and to act accordingly.

 

I guess that's where we differ. I think that politics is playing too big a role in the decision-making about this. Karl Rove as much as admitted that when he said they weren't going to start the war last July or August because "you don't bring out new products over the summer." I think the timing had a lot to do with the elections last November, and the timing now has a lot to do with the elections a year from this November. That's not to say that politics did not play a role in foreign/military policy in the last administration, of course it did. It's just that in the last administration, the vast majority of our war-making (mainly Kosovo and Iraq) was done from the air, and due to our technological superiority, relatively few American lives were lost. (Obviously aircraft can get shot down, like the helicopter in Somalia.)

 

But now we appear to be talking about a ground war; if we were going to do a lot of bombing, I think we would have started long ago. We've had one ground war going on in Afghanistan, though you have to pay really close attention to know it's still going on. I heard something about there being a major battle today, though I'm sure the vast majority of Americans will never know about it. Whether our troops are involved in these ongoing battles, I don't even know, and I try to stay up on these things. I don't think anybody's covering it up, I just think the media has correctly concluded that most people don't care anymore, we're on to the next war. Afghanistan is like so 15 minutes ago, you know? But the point is that nobody rational had any problem with us fighting in Afghanistan, due to the direct link between their government and a direct attack on our country. There is a self-described Communist on New York City talk radio, who never supports any military action by the U.S., and he was supporting the war in Afghanistan (on our side, that is.) That says something to me. But even in Afghanistan, I think most people (including me) are of the impression that our casualties have been relatively few and far between.

 

That just is not the case for Iraq. There is going to be much more significant loss of U.S. life, with benefits (including "loss avoidance") that are speculative at best.

[hops_scout]

Two things:

 

1) I may be wrong since I was only about two during Desert Storm, but werent we there to get Iraq out of Kuiat? We werent trying to oust Saddam then. Now it is time for him to leave.

 

2) If whoever said we have two smoldering buildings or whatever on first page was talking about 9/11, they are wrong. We had several smoldering buildings.

[SR540Beaver]

hops,

 

Yes, we went to war in Desert Storm to kick Iraq out of Kuwait after Iraq invaded them. That was the task at hand and that is what we did. Removing Saddam was not part of the deal. The UN put sanctions on Iraq to keep them from substantially rebuilding their military power and weapons. You say that now it is time for him to leave. The problem that many people are struggling with is the US becoming an agressor nation. We have responded when we have been attacked or one of our allies has been attacked. Think Pearl Harbor, Kuwait, 9/11, etc. In this case, Saddam's freedom to conduct business as he sees fit has been severely limited for the past 12 years. You may not be aware, but we have been dropping bombs on targets inside Iraq each day for the last 12 years to keep his military weak and to keep him from rebuilding his military. The question is, how big of an actual threat is he to US national security? And, who are WE to decide that it is time for him to go? Didn't we kick him out of Kuwait for attacking them? Yet we are about to do the same thing by invading Iraq. This is not a position that the US has taken in the past. We respond, we don't draw first blood. Most Americans including myself will get on board and support the war effort when it comes. It's just that some people want to know what the justification is beyond Saddam being a bad guy. There are many bad world leaders that hate the US. We are not planning a war agaisnt them.

[NJCubScouter]

Kwc says:

 

Yet we are about to do the same thing by invading Iraq. This is not a position that the US has taken in the past. We respond, we don't draw first blood.

 

Hmm, I suspect Salvador Allende might disagree. (If he was still alive, that is, but he isn't because our CIA had him assassinated.) I think it might be more correct to say that this IS a position that the U.S. has taken in the past, but it's generally not one that we take anymore since the collapse of the USSR'nt.

 

I agree with your main point though, Kwc. I understand why we want Saddam Hussein out, but I'm not sure how he got on top of the list of people to send Americans into battle to accomplish that goal. And although I have not brought this up before: I also don't think we have a good enough idea what we might leave behind in Iraq when we're done. If you think Hussein is the only "bad man" in the country and the only one who wishes us harm, I have some news for you. We may end up like the Soviets in Afghanistan, or ourselves in Vietnam, staying there for years to "protect our investment," losing thousands of men every year along the way.

 

I just want to be clear, I'm not some peacenik and I'm not one of the guys you are watching on TV at antiwar protests. I just think we need to be clear about the risks and the need to do this before we do it, and I am not at all convinced that our president has made the case that the need outweighs the risks. Maybe he will tonight, but I'll be at a school board meeting, being a part of the government.

[hops_scout]

One quick thing then got to go to Cub Scout meeting..

 

I beleive, and think Bush feels same way, Saddam is a terrorsist or linked in some way. This is part of why he must go. We are at war now. The War on Terror includes all terrorists. More later.

[hops_scout]

I'm back now,

Good meeting we worked on a computer badge of some sort for the WEBLOS. Now I am watching the State of the Union speech by the President. Removing Saddam will make the world a lot safer. Saddam must go because he is a threat to us, and the rest of the world. Why? Because we dont know what he is doing.