StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This is a post in response to some of the flame-wars I've seen on Iraq (one of which I initiated). So, to the point:

The current course of action (COA) from the Bush Administration is that Iraq must be conquered IOT completely purge the Baath party from Iraq and set up a democratic form of government. Bush obviously believes that it would be in the national security interests of the US to do so, and he further believes there is no other way to accomplish the objective.

So, to our poll...

Okay, some of the poll options have been doubled, and I can't edit it.

As much as I disagree with a war in Iraq, I think the administration has made it required to see it through this time. Why?

If we dont invade, I think we make Sadam more paranoid. Sooner or later his disregard for not developing nukes will come up again, and he would have to wonder if the US is gonna invade for sure this time. Im thinking this might make him more likely to sell a nuke than he would have been had we left him alone all this time. Or it might make him more inclined to use a nuke first, probably on Isreal since he cant hit us.

Its just a thought, that occured to me while reading Jegs2 poll. I would like to see continued containment and inspections but I think we are passed that point now.

I just hope the NK's dont freak out. Everyone is saying they are saber rattling, but what if they are'nt. They've surprised the west before.

I'd let inspections continue until St. Patrick's Day, try to solve the mess with a peaceful solution, and if none fo that works, attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam.

Personally, i'm all for military action, and the subsquent installation of a US military governor (or UN peacekeeping force, if feasible). Have you noticed how the majority of posts want Saddam removed? The only difference is that some would prefer his removal to be by covert means.

Covert means would just result in a new military dictator.

Pu-239 wrote:Covert means would just result in a new military dictator.

You're probably right...

A military governor installed by the United States would likely serve as a very temporary administration - or rather, talking head.

It is all too likely that Washington will immediately welcome a United Nations peacekeeping force once Saddam is out of power - whether or not he is dead -, and following that, pave the way for some kind of basic elections.

That said, I'm not sure how to vote. Is a "UN government" one with the support of the UN militarily, or after the US/UK confrentation?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I'd let inspections continue until St. Patrick's Day, try to solve the mess with a peaceful solution, and if none fo that works, attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam.

ditto!

Invade and conquer Iraq, install a US military governor while any remaining government is gutted of Saddam supporters and the nations various secret police dealt with. Then introduce democracy, starting at the low levels and working up.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:As much as I disagree with a war in Iraq, I think the administration has made it required to see it through this time. Why?

If we dont invade, I think we make Sadam more paranoid. Sooner or later his disregard for not developing nukes will come up again, and he would have to wonder if the US is gonna invade for sure this time. Im thinking this might make him more likely to sell a nuke than he would have been had we left him alone all this time. Or it might make him more inclined to use a nuke first, probably on Isreal since he cant hit us.

Its just a thought, that occured to me while reading Jegs2 poll. I would like to see continued containment and inspections but I think we are passed that point now.

I just hope the NK's dont freak out. Everyone is saying they are saber rattling, but what if they are'nt. They've surprised the west before.

Nah, Saddam won't use his nukes on Israel, or the US for that matter. He'll probably use them to blackmail the other oil states first.

After he had obtained possession of the oilfields, then yes, maybe he'll nuke Israel. With the ME oilfields in hand, he has a certain, if not absolute, immunity against nuclear reprisals.

Then we'll see how the rest of his plan unfolds. Saddam is scarily smart. Better get rid of him.

As for NK, I don't think we have anything to worry there for the time being. It's not as if there is anything in the region that is really, really important to the rest of the world. Containment there might just work.

The Nice Guy

Haven't you heard? We're pulling out of Korea, according to Rumsfeld.

I think we need to take care of this problem now. Take out Saddam, clean out the government, and temporarily install a military governor.

One of the CIA policies that I really agree with, after the Cold War, is that they will not predict what Saddam Hussein will NOT do. He's simply too unpredictable to understand, or even to try and accurately foresee the actions of.

I don't support any of those options. I think that a new, civilian government should be installed in Iraq after the war is over, and I don't think that a US Military governor would help, much.