So why can't we contain Iraq?

[HemlockGrey]

We contained the Soviets. We are currently containing North Korea.

Iraq is not run by Dr. Demento. Saddam, and, presumably, his son are not suicidal maniacs. Even if they acquire WMDs, they know that using them will result in their annhilation.

Therefor, why do we have to invade at all? I realize it would be essentially screwing over the Iraqis people, but what's really wrong with just saying 'Ok, fine, you have WMD. So do we, and we have more. Do you feel lucky?'and leaving them to their own devices, courtesy of strategic paralysis?

[Joe]

We contained the Soviets. We are currently containing North Korea.

Iraq is not run by Dr. Demento. Saddam, and, presumably, his son are not suicidal maniacs. Even if they acquire WMDs, they know that using them will result in their annhilation.

Therefor, why do we have to invade at all? I realize it would be essentially screwing over the Iraqis people, but what's really wrong with just saying 'Ok, fine, you have WMD. So do we, and we have more. Do you feel lucky?'and leaving them to their own devices, courtesy of strategic paralysis?

Well, this is the question that Bush & co. have failed to answer. And BTW, there's pretty much no way the Iraqi people aren't going to be screwed in this equation. We invade, a lot of them die as collateral damage. We don't invade, they still continue to be starved to death by the ridiculous, unfair sanctions. We don't invade and lift the sanctions, they still get repressed by Hussein, but might be more likely to revolt, since people tend to revolt when things are getting better.

[salm]

the iraki´s might not want to use the nukes but they might want to sell them to whomever is able to pay including terrorists who cant recieve nuklear retaliation because they´re hidden somwhere in hamburg.

[Mr Bean]

Iraq is not run by Dr. Demento. Saddam, and, presumably, his son are not suicidal maniacs. Even if they acquire WMDs, they know that using them will result in their annhilation.

They don't have to use them, They only need them to Blackmail the rest of the Middle East

Look at me! My Military can squish everyone single one of you(Save Isreal which can't conduct a long term ground war and are easily destroyed by Nuclear Hellfire due to small area to stage out of) And my Nukes mean no one can attack me

Thats what Nukes are, Twofold, a Bargining Chip and a Means to an End, Power, With Nukes we can't invade as he WOULD use them and with enough he could Destroy the World Wide Ecnomey

What would happen if all Oil out of all of The Middle East stoped Following Tommrow?
Simple, A depression to make the great depression look piddely nevermind the aninlation of quite abit of Religious Sites

He only needs half a dozen Nukes to do that, He could stop all production for even Five years, it might take us fourty to recover


You simply Can't Contain him, He's not just trying to Rule the World, He's trying to make us Live with him, If he had Thirty Nukes he would be militarly and Polticaly un-touchable

[Uraniun235]

We contained the Soviets.

During which time was a tenuous relationship which could have exploded at any moment into all-out nuclear warfare if someone made a mistake.

Hell, sometime around '95 I think, the Russians misinterpreted a U.S./Norwegian satellite launch as a nuclear attack, and were getting ready to launch a retaliation until they finally figured it out. And we told them in advance about it!

Containment is not an ideal solution, in my opinion. You either learn to work with the government in place or you strike before they can fuck you up, which is where we're at with the Iraqis now. Saddam's a greedy bitch who has screwed with us before.

And, IMO, Saddam has done other things (violating the original UN resolutions earlier, testing chem weapons on his own people, putting his ambition above the basic welfare of his citizens) that warrant his removal regardless of his alleged WMD ambitions.

[Arrow]

Consider what happened with Hilter. The allies appeased him to prevent war, and were afraid because of German's renewed military might (the French should have prevented that when they had the chance). Hilter used his power to gain land and more power. This is the same thing that Saddam has tried to do over and over again. The North Koreans want something (but I don't know exactly what), but they aren't out to take control of Southeast Asia. With the Soviets, they could be reasoned with, and with each side possessing thousands of nukes, the Soviets and the US knew that a mistake would destroy the world. Saddam has far more in common with Hilter than the North Koreans or the Soviets.

[Wicked Pilot]

The only way to contain Saddam is severe and harsh economic sanctions. We would have to basically blockade all of Iraq to keep Saddam at bay. Unfortunately, that involves the needless suffering of the ordinary Iraqi citizen. As the world we need to make a decision here, either we tolerate Saddam and lift the sanctions to help his people, or we take him out. The current status quo of screwing the Iraqi people to get to Saddam is unacceptable.

[Stormbringer]

We contained the Soviets. We are currently containing North Korea.

Part of the problem, is that Saddam is a dictator. The Soviets system, was at least an oligarchy. The Soviets were a lot more stable and less likely to do something incredibly rash.

Now North Korea is another story. They have a lot in common with Iraq. Unstable dictator, starving populase, and WMD. Not good. I'm half sold on military action against them. Containment won't work against crazies.

[jegs2]

We contained the Soviets. We are currently containing North Korea.

Iraq is not run by Dr. Demento. Saddam, and, presumably, his son are not suicidal maniacs. Even if they acquire WMDs, they know that using them will result in their annhilation.

Therefor, why do we have to invade at all? I realize it would be essentially screwing over the Iraqis people, but what's really wrong with just saying 'Ok, fine, you have WMD. So do we, and we have more. Do you feel lucky?'and leaving them to their own devices, courtesy of strategic paralysis?

I support a blackops campaign against Iraq, using the CIA and their ilk.

[Sea Skimmer]

We contained the Soviets. We are currently containing North Korea.

Iraq is not run by Dr. Demento. Saddam, and, presumably, his son are not suicidal maniacs. Even if they acquire WMDs, they know that using them will result in their annhilation.

Therefor, why do we have to invade at all? I realize it would be essentially screwing over the Iraqis people, but what's really wrong with just saying 'Ok, fine, you have WMD. So do we, and we have more. Do you feel lucky?'and leaving them to their own devices, courtesy of strategic paralysis?

The cold war was a real great thing for the world.

[HemlockGrey]

I don't actually support containment, but I'm throwing it out as an alternative to war.

[Vympel]

The cold war was a real great thing for the world.

And the alternative was a war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. A lot LESS great, wouldn't you think?

[Stuart Mackey]

We contained the Soviets. We are currently containing North Korea.

Iraq is not run by Dr. Demento. Saddam, and, presumably, his son are not suicidal maniacs. Even if they acquire WMDs, they know that using them will result in their annhilation.

Therefor, why do we have to invade at all? I realize it would be essentially screwing over the Iraqis people, but what's really wrong with just saying 'Ok, fine, you have WMD. So do we, and we have more. Do you feel lucky?'and leaving them to their own devices, courtesy of strategic paralysis?

I for one have never had an objection to the removal of Saddam, or any other dictator. America does not have to invade Iraq any more than it has to invade NK, but there is a certain moral imperitive, IMHO, to get rid of people like Saddam because of what they do to their own people. The trick is to make sure you do it at the right time and for the right reasons lest you cause more problems {which is why I dont like the way Bush is doing things at the moment}.

[Sokar]

We contained the Soviets. We are currently containing North Korea.

Iraq is not run by Dr. Demento. Saddam, and, presumably, his son are not suicidal maniacs. Even if they acquire WMDs, they know that using them will result in their annhilation.

Therefor, why do we have to invade at all? I realize it would be essentially screwing over the Iraqis people, but what's really wrong with just saying 'Ok, fine, you have WMD. So do we, and we have more. Do you feel lucky?'and leaving them to their own devices, courtesy of strategic paralysis?

The cold war was a real great thing for the world.

Strange as it may sound Skimmer , I would go back to the Cold War in a heartbeat. Sure there was tension, but there was also 'relative peace'. the world had to choose sides and knew that rash or foolish acts could result in eiether of the two big kids on the block squashing them for upsetting the applecart.......All this madness of the last 5 years would have never happened....Go ahead flame me, but thats the way I feel.

[Stuart Mackey]

We contained the Soviets. We are currently containing North Korea.

Iraq is not run by Dr. Demento. Saddam, and, presumably, his son are not suicidal maniacs. Even if they acquire WMDs, they know that using them will result in their annhilation.

Therefor, why do we have to invade at all? I realize it would be essentially screwing over the Iraqis people, but what's really wrong with just saying 'Ok, fine, you have WMD. So do we, and we have more. Do you feel lucky?'and leaving them to their own devices, courtesy of strategic paralysis?

The cold war was a real great thing for the world.

Strange as it may sound Skimmer , I would go back to the Cold War in a heartbeat. Sure there was tension, but there was also 'relative peace'. the world had to choose sides and knew that rash or foolish acts could result in eiether of the two big kids on the block squashing them for upsetting the applecart.......All this madness of the last 5 years would have never happened....Go ahead flame me, but thats the way I feel.

cant say I agree, but hey, i cant do a damned thing about it either way so I just live with it.

[Phil Skayhan]

Bear in mind that this is only a theory of mine for one of the reasons that containment is not the answer. Feel free to shred it.

For 10 years we did just that including establishing "no fly zones" with troops stationed throughout the Mid East including Saudi Arabia. The presence of US soldiers in his homeland was one of the reason bin Laden gave in his justification of jihad; the US was defiling the land of Mecca(birthplace of Mohammed, yadda yadda holy yadda).

In order to maintain containment we would be required to continue to station troops in Saudi Arabia. This would only serve to fuel the fundamentalist terrorist support and recruitment in that country (never forget the nationality of most of the Sept 11th terrorists). The net increase in security for America is zero.

So in invading and occupying Iraq, the US can kill two birds with one stone. First we remove Saddam and the B'ath Party and establish a democratic government, hopefully increasing the stability of the region (Hah!). Second we can move our troops out of Saudi Arabia (tacitly giving in to the demand of Al Queda), decreasing the threat of terrorist attacks against the US.

[Arrow]

So in invading and occupying Iraq, the US can kill two birds with one stone. First we remove Saddam and the B'ath Party and establish a democratic government, hopefully increasing the stability of the region (Hah!). Second we can move our troops out of Saudi Arabia (tacitly giving in to the demand of Al Queda), decreasing the threat of terrorist attacks against the US.

No, then they'll (the terrorist) just bitch and moan about us being in Iraq. The only realistic way to deal with a fanatic/fundamentalist is to kill them before they can kill you.

Ideally, the best way to handle the islamic terrorists is to cut their source of funds and isolate them from the rest of the world. To do that, we need alternative fuels, which will significantly reduce the middle east's income and world importance. Since the middle east wouldn't be that important anymore, the west would not maintain a presences. Problem mostly solved (some of them will still want to destroy the rest, but most of them probably wouldn't give a shit).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

We contained the Soviets. We are currently containing North Korea.

Iraq is not run by Dr. Demento. Saddam, and, presumably, his son are not suicidal maniacs. Even if they acquire WMDs, they know that using them will result in their annhilation.

Therefor, why do we have to invade at all? I realize it would be essentially screwing over the Iraqis people, but what's really wrong with just saying 'Ok, fine, you have WMD. So do we, and we have more. Do you feel lucky?'and leaving them to their own devices, courtesy of strategic paralysis?

First of all, Iraq already has WMDs. They just don't have nukes. If Iraq gets nukes, however:

1. They can do whatever they want without creating a situation whereby they come into conflict with another nuclear power.

2. Iran would have to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrence in a crash programme, and we couldn't really fault them for it.

3. Syria and Egypt would probably follow. Both have the theoretical capability, though maybe we could talk the Egyptians out of it in exchange for protection under our umbrella. Maybe not.

4. Iraq would be able to fund terrorists with total impunity as they long as they used enough cutouts that it was like Abu Nidal hanging around Baghdad, or as long as these guys weren't doing 9/11 style attacks. Low-level 70s/80s stuff? Don't visit a discotheque.

5. Considering previous Iraqi funding of the Palestinian terror groups, if he doesn't stop that funding, the possibility of an Israeli-Iraqi nuclear conflict isn't entirely far-fetched. This would be a bad thing and result in a lot of other bad things.

6. We would have to permanently garrison troops in the KSA and Kuwait to avoid Ba'athist Iraq from becoming one of the most powerful countries in the whole world, and be prepared to fight a nuclear war to defend a bunch of Wahhabist fundies if things go wrong.

7. Saddam isn't a modern rational individual. He's a tribal villager born in Mandate Iraq, which was little better than the OE's rule over the Arab regions. IE, he's basically ruling like a good old-fashioned Oriental Despot, and he may not fully understand the potential of those weapons, or the implications of using them, in the context of more than "big city-busting weapon, ooh nice."

8. Do you want to trust him? He's the only ruler since Mussolini to have used chemical weapons and the only ruler period to have used gas on his own people. That's WMD use right there. Why not nukes?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

No, then they'll (the terrorist) just bitch and moan about us being in Iraq. The only realistic way to deal with a fanatic/fundamentalist is to kill them before they can kill you.

Ideally, the best way to handle the islamic terrorists is to cut their source of funds and isolate them from the rest of the world. To do that, we need alternative fuels, which will significantly reduce the middle east's income and world importance. Since the middle east wouldn't be that important anymore, the west would not maintain a presences. Problem mostly solved (some of them will still want to destroy the rest, but most of them probably wouldn't give a shit).

It wouldn't decrease the risk at all. If we start using alternative fuels, the economy of the Mid-East is going to collapse -- Every single Arab country combined has a GDP the size of Finland's when you remove oil revenues. Guess who everyone over there will blame for that?

[Andrew J.]

No, then they'll (the terrorist) just bitch and moan about us being in Iraq. The only realistic way to deal with a fanatic/fundamentalist is to kill them before they can kill you.

Ideally, the best way to handle the islamic terrorists is to cut their source of funds and isolate them from the rest of the world. To do that, we need alternative fuels, which will significantly reduce the middle east's income and world importance. Since the middle east wouldn't be that important anymore, the west would not maintain a presences. Problem mostly solved (some of them will still want to destroy the rest, but most of them probably wouldn't give a shit).

It wouldn't decrease the risk at all. If we start using alternative fuels, the economy of the Mid-East is going to collapse -- Every single Arab country combined has a GDP the size of Finland's when you remove oil revenues. Guess who everyone over there will blame for that?

And what do you think they'll do about it without money?

[Arrow]

No, then they'll (the terrorist) just bitch and moan about us being in Iraq. The only realistic way to deal with a fanatic/fundamentalist is to kill them before they can kill you.

Ideally, the best way to handle the islamic terrorists is to cut their source of funds and isolate them from the rest of the world. To do that, we need alternative fuels, which will significantly reduce the middle east's income and world importance. Since the middle east wouldn't be that important anymore, the west would not maintain a presences. Problem mostly solved (some of them will still want to destroy the rest, but most of them probably wouldn't give a shit).

It wouldn't decrease the risk at all. If we start using alternative fuels, the economy of the Mid-East is going to collapse -- Every single Arab country combined has a GDP the size of Finland's when you remove oil revenues. Guess who everyone over there will blame for that?

And what do you think they'll do about it without money?

Exactly. If no one buys their oil (or at the very least OPEC self-distructs as all its members drop prices through the floor in order to survive in a world were alternative fuels are mainstream), then the single largest source of money for the terrorists collapses. They are like everyone else in that they can't do shit without money.

[Uraniun235]

The cold war was a real great thing for the world.

And the alternative was a war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. A lot LESS great, wouldn't you think?

A war between the Soviets and Western Europe+US immediately after the fall of Germany would have been less devastating than a nuclear war decades later.

[0.1]

I could be wrong but I don't recall seeing this point anywhere.

For all those in favor of containing Iraq, just how do you do that?

Outline the plan to contain that country if you could. I assume you are intelligent people and can put up a good plan for containment that won't be a total joke. If the concept of containment is only used as a catch phrase, then containment isn't going to be a course of action.

It's like the Germans and the French screaming about more inspections, but when asked about the end game, the answer is pretty much silence? Is there a point defined by time and results that people can say, ok, well, inspection is a success, let's go home, or inspection has failed, now let's do something. Can anyone answer the question? Are the French, Germans, Chinese, and Russians going to foot the bill for containment and inspections or are the Americans going to be forced to pay the tab?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It wouldn't decrease the risk at all. If we start using alternative fuels, the economy of the Mid-East is going to collapse -- Every single Arab country combined has a GDP the size of Finland's when you remove oil revenues. Guess who everyone over there will blame for that?

And what do you think they'll do about it without money?

Are you that naive? There are large Muslim populations in Europe and decent-sized ones in the Americas, and of course there are Muslim countries like Pakistan and Indonesia and Malaysia that wouldn't be affected by ending the market for oil.

These people would provide all the funding necessary for the terror acts to be carried out, if not carry them out themselves. You know why? They're all Muslims, and the Muslim Umma is a single unified body; they don't have a conceptualization of the Nation-State like we do. So when we abandon the majority of the population of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to STARVE TO DEATH without money to import food, the nation which, coincidentally, contains the Hejaz, the holiest region with the two holiest cities in Islam, all of those people will be very upset.

I wish everyone who proposed theories on how to deal with this would at least study the issue before trying to do so. As you can see, not only would developing an alternative source of fuel be disastrous, but when the oil runs out naturally in that region, we're probably going to see a wave of terrorism to make the current one look like nothing at all.

That's why it's vital that we totally remake the Middle East before then into a region capable of at least supporting its self; the alternative is a religious war unlike anything seen since the 17th century.

[Sea Skimmer]

We contained the Soviets. We are currently containing North Korea.

Iraq is not run by Dr. Demento. Saddam, and, presumably, his son are not suicidal maniacs. Even if they acquire WMDs, they know that using them will result in their annhilation.

Therefor, why do we have to invade at all? I realize it would be essentially screwing over the Iraqis people, but what's really wrong with just saying 'Ok, fine, you have WMD. So do we, and we have more. Do you feel lucky?'and leaving them to their own devices, courtesy of strategic paralysis?

The cold war was a real great thing for the world.

Strange as it may sound Skimmer , I would go back to the Cold War in a heartbeat. Sure there was tension, but there was also 'relative peace'. the world had to choose sides and knew that rash or foolish acts could result in eiether of the two big kids on the block squashing them for upsetting the applecart.......All this madness of the last 5 years would have never happened....Go ahead flame me, but thats the way I feel.

Containment was fine for the US and NATO, it sucked shit for anyone caught between the power blocs.