Should the US attack Iraq?

[Sothis]

Basically that's all there is to it, the question of to attack or not, and I personally think we should.

Saddam is a tyrant who treats his own people like rubbish and uses chemical weapons on his enemies. He continues to try and develop weapons of mass destruction in direct affront to the allies who defeated his forces in the Gulf War. His regime is brutal, and needs to be destroyed.

Some might say simply assassinate Saddam, but then there's every chance that one of his children, or someone from within his regime will take over. We have to topple his entire operation, and to do that, will need to attack.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

An attack on Iraq might make the Iraqis the US even more. If we want them to overthrow Saddam, we have to show them the madman Saddam is.

Perhaps, we could put a bunch of donuts down a well, and then Saddam would jump in to get the donuts, and get stuck. Then, the well is filled with cement.

[EmperorSolo51]

Yes, The United States should attack Iraq. This man attacked a Nuetral during war (Israel, 1990), Has violated the terms ofthe treatty he signed after the gulf war, gassed his own people, slaughtered the kurds in northern Iraq, committed war crimes during the Iran-Iraq war. what more can be said. This man needs to go.

[Wicked Pilot]

To be quite honest with you, I don't think we'll launch any significant attack. As long as Saddam stays in his nation and oppresses only his own people, they're won't be enough political will to spend the money and sacrifice the lives needed for a full invasion and overthrow.


As a small aside, what's really sad about the whole thing is that the people of the Middle East are so used to oppressive and murderous monarchies, dictators, and theocracies that they don't even know what freedom is. If they did, Saddam would end up like Ceausescu.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I just hope people realize that if we are intent on toppling the Iraqi goverment, then we will be there for decades. Not the 5 years some of the pro invasion people have been throwing around.

I also feel pretty strongly that if we invade another country with the intent of reshaping it to our liking there needs to be a formal declaration of war.

[Mr Bean]

Invite him somewhere, Carpet bomb his admistration, Let him watch them kill him.

Falling that heres a quick if rather evil way to get him

US says, If we don't Get Saddam in the next week(Turned in or give himself up)
We will Turn Mecca and Medina into the Worlds Largets Glass bowls


Sure it would posion our relations with the entire middle east but it sure as hell would work if you want to be ruthless

[Stravo]

I don't think the question should be whether to attack Iraq but WHEN. They are a clear and present danger to the US. Think about it, if anyone could provide the terrorists like Al-Qaeda with a small nuclear suitcase bomb, its gonna be Iraq. After all that happened with 9/11 my whole attitude about these terrrorists and their arab states have become exteremely hard line. I say a prememtive strike is ALWAYS better than waiting to be hit. I could care less about world opinion because whine as much as teh Europeans will undoubtably do, where else are they going to go???? Into China's Red hands...I think not...we're it, there's no where else to go so I say use that. Our lives are more valuable than foreign lives...SORRY not very humane or PC but fuck it, American lives will always come first in my mind.

SO I say we HAVE to get rid of Iraq, or at least bomb them down to some level where they will not be a threat fro some time to come. What are we going to wait for, a nuclear mushroom cloud in Manhattan??

Living in Manhattan, I can tell you that I am QUITE sensitive about terrorist threats....

[Omega-13]

Well, I don't think America will declare war on Iraq, they will use some sneeky political term, like they did for the prisoners they took in Afganistan (sp?)

America Declaring War is not going to happen, though they will attack and topple the government of Iraq

[TrailerParkJawa]

They are a clear and present danger to the US. Think about it, if anyone could provide the terrorists like Al-Qaeda with a small nuclear suitcase bomb, its gonna be Iraq

Suitecase bombs are not easy to make, Iraq make be capable of putting a bomb together, but not such a small one. Even if they could, why would they give it to Arab terrorists? What does he have to gain? He has everything to loose.

[Akm72]

It's decision time on Iraq for the UN. They must either insist he abides by the agreements signed at the end of the Gulf War and let the weapons inspectors have unlimited access and if this is not forthcoming then attack to remove Saddam from power. Or just say 'to hell with it', lift the sanctions and the no-fly zones, and let Iraq rejoin the international community.

[Next of Kin]

They are a clear and present danger to the US.

The Iraq that we would be battling would not be the same Iraq as in 1990-1991. Their armed forces are a shadow of their former selves. The only threat is from their supposed stockpiles of biological weapons of mass destruction.

Think about it, if anyone could provide the terrorists like Al-Qaeda with a small nuclear suitcase bomb, its gonna be Iraq

Saddam hasn't worked with the various Al-Qaeda cells in the past (or at least that we know of). Al-Qaeda doesn't need him; they do a good job of raising their own funds and stockpiling their own weapons under legit fronts.

After all that happened with 9/11 my whole attitude about these terrrorists and their arab states have become exteremely hard line.

Do you seriously think that Arab states are in bed with Al-Qaeda? What information are you basing this on--redneck militia nonsense?
Does it surprise you to know that not all Muslim countries are Arab? There are Al-Qaeda cells in Russia and Bosnia with people who are very white and very islamic.

I say a prememtive strike is ALWAYS better than waiting to be hit. I could care less about world opinion because whine as much as teh Europeans will undoubtably do, where else are they going to go???? Into China's Red hands...I think not...we're it, there's no where else to go so I say use that.

Now you're just rambling on.

Our lives are more valuable than foreign lives...SORRY not very humane or PC but fuck it, American lives will always come first in my mind.

Are you Azeron in disguise?
Truly ignorant b.s.

SO I say we HAVE to get rid of Iraq, or at least bomb them down to some level where they will not be a threat fro some time to come. What are we going to wait for, a nuclear mushroom cloud in Manhattan??

Ah the old slippery slope. If we don't pound Iraq into the ground then they'll do all sorts of horrible shit to the U.S. What acts of terrorism has Iraq committed on the U.S. in the last 5 years? I'll say that sanctions have been more effective at driving Iraq into the ground than U.S. military action. Iraq's a toothless dog.

[Wicked Pilot]

It's decision time on Iraq for the UN. They must either insist he abides by the agreements signed at the end of the Gulf War and let the weapons inspectors have unlimited access and if this is not forthcoming then attack to remove Saddam from power. Or just say 'to hell with it', lift the sanctions and the no-fly zones, and let Iraq rejoin the international community.

Yeah, the UN makes a firm decision. Like that's gonna happen. We might as well wait for Jerry Falwell to admit he's gay.

[phongn]

Okay, a word about suitcase bombs:

They are extremely difficult to make, and aren't really that small. They also have a short shelf life. Any stolen from the fUSSR probably have degraded long ago, unless Iraq or whoever has serious resources. Furthermore, they emit detectable radiation, and the US has radiation detectors (handheld and larger) all over the place to try and intercept them.

Suitcase bombs, smuggling warheads or whatnot is not a very effective means of delivery into the United States.

[phongn]

Invite him somewhere, Carpet bomb his admistration, Let him watch them kill him.

Falling that heres a quick if rather evil way to get him

US says, If we don't Get Saddam in the next week(Turned in or give himself up)
We will Turn Mecca and Medina into the Worlds Largets Glass bowls

You aren't being serious, right?

[Azeron]

Are you Azeron in disguise?
Truly ignorant b.s.

There is only 1 Azeron, and he is never in disguise!!!

On a moer serious note. Lets face facts. Saddam is an evil bastard. He first and last desire is power, and it doesn't matter what he will have to do to keep it.

there are 2 choices:
1) Go in there and shoot the place up
2) hope that he dies of natural causes

Why not a revolution? There is noone in Iraq (anymore) with power who will do it.

it really just becomes a risk asseement. Do you think that the Man who modeled himself after Stalin is going to kill allot more people if we leave him alone? Is instablility now while we are politically motivated enough to sustain an occupation better than the chaos sure to follow Saddams eventual death when we may not have the will to sustain an occupation or fix the place up? Are we willing to risk an uinstable reigeme with nukes on their hands?

the more I go over it, after my intial response to go kill the SOB, the more I reealize I should go with my gut instinct. Lets face facts, he is nothing but trouble. Leave him alone or not, as long as he is alive and in power his desire to fufill his own delusions of granduer (as witnessed by his romance novels he has written) shows someone who is incapable of remorse or realistic self relfection. He will try to kill and conquer becasue he needs to make everyone know what a wonderful person he really is. (once you get past the murdering psychopath part) he is just misunderstood (in his own mind).

I look at the couterpoints to invasions, you know what, the risk is just too great. Quite like a game of cards, you win as much as you can when you can, and minimuze your loses when you can't.

[MKSheppard]

Our lives are more valuable than foreign lives...SORRY not very humane or PC but fuck it, American lives will always come first in my mind.

Are you Azeron in disguise?
Truly ignorant b.s.

Actually Stravo has said what I feel too....fuck it, If I have a choice
between killing 5,000 foreigners and 50 Americans, I'm gonna be
pushing the "Kill 5,000 furriners" button like a crack-smoking monkey.

EDIT: And I wouldn't expect any less from a Canadian, German, or
Brit over whether to kill 50 of his countrymen or 5,000 foreigners.

[MKSheppard]

They are a clear and present danger to the US.

The Iraq that we would be battling would not be the same Iraq as in 1990-1991. Their armed forces are a shadow of their former selves. The only threat is from their supposed stockpiles of biological weapons of mass destruction.

Actually, no. Saddam has done a good job of re-assembling his forces
after the Gulf War. he has about 1,700 MBTs and 1,000+ artillery pieces
right now, and he has 250,000 troops, versus the 1 million + force levels
of the Gulf War Iraqi Army......

He's learned his lession, and he sure as hell isn't going to make his
generals re-fight WWI all over again THIS TIME.

[Howedar]

Yes, we should attack. It would be another excellent live-fire exercise for the US military.

Yes, I'm quite serious.

[Master of Ossus]

If we want them to overthrow Saddam, we have to show them the madman Saddam is.

Perhaps, we could put a bunch of donuts down a well, and then Saddam would jump in to get the donuts, and get stuck. Then, the well is filled with cement.

Sorry, but if they haven't figured it out by now, they deserve to live under a dictator. Saddam is clearly evil. When they tried to overthrow him, he used chemical weapons on his own people AFTER the Gulf War, and now he comes back and claims that he has eliminated all of his WoMD? Enough Iraqi Botulism disappeared following the Gulf War to kill the entire population of the Earth ten times over. We cannot allow people like that to run countries, economies, and people's lives. He needs to be deposed. His people have already tried to overthrow him, and were put down not because they were in a minority, but because they lacked the power. His rule is clearly totalitarian and contrary to human rights within Iraq. For the good of the Iraqi people I think we need to go back into the Middle East to kill another of the snakes that grew from the USSR's belly.

[Stuart Mackey]

Basically that's all there is to it, the question of to attack or not, and I personally think we should.

Saddam is a tyrant who treats his own people like rubbish and uses chemical weapons on his enemies. He continues to try and develop weapons of mass destruction in direct affront to the allies who defeated his forces in the Gulf War. His regime is brutal, and needs to be destroyed.

Some might say simply assassinate Saddam, but then there's every chance that one of his children, or someone from within his regime will take over. We have to topple his entire operation, and to do that, will need to attack.

Ahh the old bash Saddam thing. I think he should be disposed of, the mans a genocidal bastard.
But if America is going down this track, when can the world expect the US to topple the backward communist lot in North Korea? and lets not forget China, they are not much better than Iraq and have been in bussiness longer. Ultimatly I suspect America dealing to Iraq because its a easy mark and faces no real risk of retaliation. Its good for the Bush administrations poll ratings, and the media love a succesful war, and so does the public, esp if there is no risk to America itself.

[Master of Ossus]

Both China and North Korea appear to be attempting to affect change within their nations. That does not justify all of their actions. It does not erase their years of abuse, but it does lend itself to hope for the future.

Communism simply is not the threat that it once was. Dictatorships and totalitarian regimes are. The United States probably should not attack either China or North Korea, but it does need to deal with Iraq, which seems to be purposely antagonistic to the world community. Saddam and his regime need to be ousted for the good of everyone involved.

[Stuart Mackey]

Both China and North Korea appear to be attempting to affect change within their nations. That does not justify all of their actions. It does not erase their years of abuse, but it does lend itself to hope for the future.

Communism simply is not the threat that it once was. Dictatorships and totalitarian regimes are. The United States probably should not attack either China or North Korea, but it does need to deal with Iraq, which seems to be purposely antagonistic to the world community. Saddam and his regime need to be ousted for the good of everyone involved.

Communism is totalitarinism/dictatorship's they just dress it up wth ideology. It could be argues that change in these nations is just to recovour lost ground in terms of national power and has nothing to do with anything resembling democratic reform.
As to Iraq, yes they antagonise western nations, but hey, so do a lot of other nations, and nothing is done. What seems to be forgotten is that Iraq does not have significant power projection capabilities to threaten nations, aside from their immediate neighbours and in a limted way even then, they are not a real threat to anyone except themselfs. Natuaraly you have to keep an eye on them to prevent them becomeing a threat.
While I do not disagree with getting rid of Saddams regime, I think that people need to realise that there are other concerns in the world that require equel atttention.

[Mr. B]

All we have to do is wait out Saddam and let him die. Then go in and rebuild. This way we avoid turning the Middle East into a huge warzone and getting the US in the middle.

And the only reason Prez Bush wants to go after Saddam is because we lost Osama and the War on Terror is going nowhere. He needs something to distract America from the economic and political problems.

And to avenge his fathers failed plan.

[Mr Bean]

China however is one country we can't take, Exluding the Obvious Nuclear threat is the main problem of getting our Troops either by sea through our vast amounts of Landin... oh wait we don't have those, Or by ground through, umm 30 Countrys that China could easily see?

Unless we loaded everyone between the ages of of 18-30 Handed them an M-16 and ten clips of ammo and Droped them In China I don't see any general way we are going to be able to get that country...

[Nick]

Both China and North Korea appear to be attempting to affect change within their nations. That does not justify all of their actions. It does not erase their years of abuse, but it does lend itself to hope for the future.

Communism simply is not the threat that it once was. Dictatorships and totalitarian regimes are. The United States probably should not attack either China or North Korea, but it does need to deal with Iraq, which seems to be purposely antagonistic to the world community. Saddam and his regime need to be ousted for the good of everyone involved.

Calling China, at least, communist is misleading. The so-called Communist Party is still in power, but they abandoned communist economics quite some time ago (I'd have to look up dates). Not sure about North Korea, but they may be following the same path.

That being said, China is still terribly lacking in political freedom (just ask Tibet, or the nearest available member of Falun Gong). However, the greater flow of information encouraged by the conversion to a market economy lends credence to the possibility of eventual grass roots reform (we're talking a billion people here - no army in the world is going to be able to suppress a significant grass-roots revolt).

With the fundamentalist states (note that it is the fundamentalism which is the problem, not the religion or the race), no such grass roots reform is likely. Information flow is too restricted, the government's control too tight. Unlike China, they show little sign of loosening their grip on the reins even slightly.

However, the decision to topple a state is a tough call - one affecting the lives of millions of people for years (even decades or generations) to come. This is not to say it should never be done - but it should be done consciously and deliberately, saying 'This regime is a menace to the community of nations and its own people. The people are not in a situation to do anything for themselves, and so the community of nations feels justified in taking action'.

It should never be done on the basis of 'get them before they get us' jingoism, without a full understanding of the likely consequences, and the acceptance of the responsibility for those consequences.