war with Iraq?

[coolman]

as a brit i am standing by quietly as, across the pond, george w bush decides that saddam hussein and his cronies are getting in the way of world peace.

as of yet, i have no opinions on the matter, but if saddam decided to launch a chem/bio strike at an allied country, my opinion would change. similarly, if the yanks decided to start bombing innocent iraqis in order to get at the bad guys, my opinion would change as well.

if we as NATO did go to war, or at least as an Anglo-American alliance, like "Testicular" Tony Blair seems to be moving towards, would it be worth it? could the world survive a war against a maniac with biological weapons at his fingertips?

i am not worried yet as the planning seems to be looking at months, not weeks, but the horizon is darkening, and although its the early stages, i can't help but think...

any ideas?

 

[qjakal]

Weapons Indeed..

I tend to look at it the other way round, coolman...

Can we survive if we LEAVE a madman like that with biological weapons loose in the world?

Q

 

[Prime]

I tend to agree....the time to strike is before they build there arsonal further, not before its too late or more lives will be taken. The fact that he has that kind of weapon at all is a reason to take action.

 

[venray]

We should have..

gotten rid of him the first time around but didnt....cant afford to make that mistake again......


ven

 

[He-Man]

Re: We should have..

gotten rid of him the first time around but didnt....cant afford to make that mistake again......


ven

yeah..and we gotta realize that "getting rid of him " shouldn't be just driving him off somewhere ...unless it's driving him off a very high cliff.

personally, i'd love for him to be nuked, so then we could be much more DAMN sure that he's not gonna start crap again. lol

 

[He-Man]

I tend to agree....the time to strike is before they build there arsonal further, not before its too late or more lives will be taken. The fact that he has that kind of weapon at all is a reason to take action.

what worries me is that i saw somethin on the news about the president of the US and the...uh..whatever...of russia ( they have a president too, right? i can't think straight right now, since i'm tired. lol ) agreeing to decrease the usa's and russia's nuclear weapons.

I mean..what happens if Saddam ends up havin more weapons than the US?..and then decides to launch them? Not a pleasant situation, I'd think

 

[Dave2112]

Hopefully a solution can be figured out that will benefit everyone. Unfortunatly, it's not as simple as just bombing Iraq back to the stone age...


WASHINGTON (Aug. 1) - If Saddam Hussein is overthrown, the United States may have to spend billions of dollars to keep Iraq stable. Soldiers may have to dispatched to the Persian Gulf for years, and U.S. allies could be overthrown, analysts say.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is concluding two days of hearings on Iraq with a look Thursday at what's likely to happen if the United States succeeds in driving Saddam from power.

''It would be a tragedy if we removed a tyrant in Iraq, only to leave chaos in his wake,'' Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., said Wednesday.

A series of Iraq analysts generally agreed that Iraq must be stopped from developing biological, chemical or even nuclear weapons.

But there were differences about whether a U.S. military invasion was the solution - at least right now.

Morton Halperin of the Council on Foreign Relations suggested tightening the economic embargo against Iraq and providing economic assistance to states along its border to discourage smuggling.

Richard Butler, former chief U.N. arms inspector in Iraq, said the United States and Russia should make another joint effort to get Iraq to agree to serious weapons inspections. Inspectors have not been allowed to return to Iraq since 1998.

But Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear physicist who defected in 1994, said it is unlikely inspectors could uncover hidden weapons-development programs.

''With no large, easily distinguishable nuclear sites and little or no human intelligence, it is difficult to see how any measure short of a regime change will be effective,'' he said.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said a massive air, land and sea assault could dominate Iraq's military in 72 hours. He said Iraqi forces have been weakened since the 1991 Persian Gulf war and most of the Iraqi army doesn't support Saddam.

Former CIA director James Woolsey echoed that point Thursday, telling CBS' ''The Early Show'' he has no doubt this country could succeed in such a mission.

''The Iraqi military is at about 40 percent of what it was in 1991,'' he said. Woolsey said the United States spends ''40 to 45 percent of what the entire world spends on the military, and to say that the United States cannot succeed in this endeavor, I think, is ridiculous.''

But others warned that, if attacked, Saddam would likely unleash his weapons of mass destruction because he'd have nothing to lose with his own survival in jeopardy.

Even if the U.S. forces quickly topple Saddam - something other analysts said shouldn't be taken for granted - the United States will face the difficulty of trying to unite rival groups in Iraq into a stable, friendly government.

Analysts said that could require U.S. forces to remain in Iraq for years at a cost of billions of dollars. Any invasion and long-term U.S. presence would be widely unpopular in the Arab world, which could threaten then leadership of Arab states friendly to the United States.

''Even if the Iraqi people have a happy outcome, I believe that most people in the region will see this as American imperialism,'' said Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland.

Biden said he did not ask Bush administration officials to testify to avoid interfering with their internal debate on Iraq, but expects to call them for a future hearing.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Wednesday that President Bush does not view the situation in Iraq as a problem for the United States to take on alone. ''The president thinks that Iraq presents a worldwide problem to peace,'' Fleischer said.

Biden said Bush welcomed his plans to hold hearings, which Biden hopes will open a national debate on Iraq.

But Gen. Tommy Franks, who oversees the war in Afghanistan and would command any invasion of Iraq, said Wednesday it was not the right time to discuss possible war plans in Iraq.

''I think all of the speculation ... is not helpful with respect to Afghanistan or any of the other issues,'' said Franks, commander of the U.S. Central Command.

 

[Haltickling]

Iraq

I agree with most of the assessments in Dave's quoted article. These were most probably the same reasons why the US military forces didn't topple Saddam after the Gulf War. But that's only part of the whole picture.

The US needed Saddam as a continuous threat to the neighboring countries to ensure their influence in the region. A pacified Iraq without Saddam wouldn't justify the presence of US troops in Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait any more, thereby leaving the US oil companies and investments highly vulnerable.

Let's imagine a Middle East without the threatening presence of Saddam and the Iraq:

Saudi-Arabia is under a highly oppressive regime with lots of internal enemies. Yet, whoever rules Saudi-Arabia is the 'Protector of the Holy Sites' in Mecca and Medina, thus having an enormous impact on the whole Islamic world. The strategic presence of US troops (obviously as a defense against Iraq) is just priceless, especially in case of a revolution in Saudi-Arabia.

The Shiites in Iraq's southern parts would side with Iran almost instantly, thus strengthening the Islamic Republic. Not desirable, especially as many other countries in the region have large Shiite minorities who will try to imitate them. And not acceptable to whoever rules Iraq after Saddam, as it will cut off Iraq's access to the Gulf, as well as losing the only productive agricultural area between Euphrat and Tigris.

The Kurds in Iraq's northern parts have suffered most under Saddam's regime (even despite Saddam BEING a Shiite Kurd!); they have been striving for independence since ages, and that's what they'll get in a power vacuum. But: They have immense oil resources around Kerkuk and an industrial center in Mosul, plus several highly important pipelines. Those will be lost to whoever rules Iraq after Saddam.

In addition, there is a rather large, severely suppressed Kurdish minority in Turkey (a NATO member) who will most certainly try to join a Kurd state in northern Iraq, something that Turkey just won't accept. Another probable site of war, this time involving NATO.

The embargos will never be able to wall off Iraq completely. You just can't close a country as large as Iraq, surrounded by high mountains and a desert. The only effect of the embargo is the increased suffering of the population (mostly the children). All the money from smuggling oil across the borders goes into Saddam's treasury, to buy new weapons and for compensations to the Palestinian suicide bombers. Each Palestinian killed by Israeli troops gets his family 5000 $, each suicide bomber's family gets 25.000 $! (The stopping of this would be the only positive aspect of removing Saddam.)

IMO, removing Saddam now would be more dangerous than leaving him in place. Try to find his nuclear and biological weapons' productions and destroy them, that makes a lot of sense. He'll start anew, and we'll destroy his arsenals again. But in the present situation, there's no viable alternative to maintaining a state of instability (on a low level) in the region.

I think the USA have missed their opportunity to keep Saddam under control long before the Gulf War. Let's not forget: USA was the nation who supported Iraq lavishly as long as they fought against Iran. When that war was over, the States withdrew their support, without continuing their influence on Saddam. That was their chance to turn Iraq into a western oriented country.

 

[qjakal]

What Ifs...

..are interesting, but I've noticed that it doesn't usually play out the way experts think it will most of the time. These are the same "experts" who definitively stated that the USA was about to get itself bogged down in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan in its "rush for justice"..... There are just too many factors to accurately predict what will happen in an aftermath. Personally, I think his removal and the opportunity to become a different sort of state is worth the bloodshed, tears and treasure that we and our allies will be forced to expend. These "little cancers' are, imo, more destructive than we give them credit for being, because by their very existence they exemplify our tolerance (read: weakness if you're from other cultures). As for out "oil interests", at the moment there is quite a bit of Alaskan activity...we are obviously about to open those vast reserves, for better or worse. This move will hasten the advent of hybrid electric cars and legislation for alternative energy supplies. Believe me, Hal, we're working hard on both wind and wave generators on massive scales, as well as other less traditional ideas coming into the pipeline! All this aside from nuclear production, which still is a viable option in theory. I think within 30-50 years we'll be fairly independent of OPEC in general, and hopefully our politics will become a bit less "interest oriented" as well...meantime, I think Saddam should indeed go, because, as simplistic as it sounds, "It's the right thing to do..."

 

[Neutron]

To HalTickling..

Thats crap. The reason the US didn't go after Saddam the first time is the first Bush KNEW he'd have lost Saudi Support the second he tried. One of the conditions for their help was the US would SPECIFICALLY not try to topple any regime in the Middle East.
Now they have no choice.

Tron

 

[Haltickling]

Q: What you're saying is tantamount to forget about long-range planning: "Things will play out differently anyway, so why plan for possible consequences for the region?" It's very similar to Islamic fatalism.

Neutron: In what way does your post contradict mine? If you read it again, I clearly mentioned the advantages for the Saudi rulers if leaving Saddam in power. Mr Bush's advisors knew about this too. So what?

 

[Krokus]

Ah

To hell with iraq. Kill Satan and let them take care of themselves for once. As an American, Im sick of helping country's out AFTER we have beaten them. Hal - I sense some anti-American in you. Don't give in to the dark side. 😎

 

[Haltickling]

Krokus, I'm definitely anti-Saddam! However, it's frequently wiser to see the bigger picture; that's what I'm trying to explain. And there are a few more sides than just "dark" and "good"... 😎

 

[Krokus]

Hehe

I understand completely, I was just messin' around. 😎

 

[Biggles of 266]

I agree, weapons of mass destruction should not be allowed in the hands of an unstable militaristic simple-minded leader. Disarm George Bush before he causes more trouble 🙄

 

[qjakal]

Long range...

planning is all well and good, but given our lack of hard data, what you're actually indulging in is "long range guessing"...or "I hope" syndrome. What I meant is that at some point you need to set aside the fears of all the possible bad outcomes, and concentrate on dealing with a "known evil" and its removal, and then deal with the outcome of that action as it unfolds. My feeling is that the whole situation would become very fluidic and subject to a variety of pressures towards some sort of compromise government that all involved could tolerate or at least survive interaction with from interior and exterior POVs. The present setup is intolerable and we know that the citizenry of the country is suffering...a problem we have had some hand in creating , but one which we are also willing to alleviate in the future. Power politics? Yup...but apparently in certain cultures it's the only recognized form of diplomacy...wishing for a day when it's NOT so, but I'm not holding my breath. Q

 

[BigJim]

I agree, weapons of mass destruction should not be allowed in the hands of an unstable militaristic simple-minded leader. Disarm George Bush before he causes more trouble 🙄

Damn you you aussie git, you got there before me! LOL😀

 

[BigJim]

If and when the new war happens I sincerely hope Tony Blergh and his bunch of malnourished, whinging, lefties decide to give the MOD some decent funding. Our warships can't sail fast enough because we don't have the reserves of fuel to allow it, our fighter pilots in the RAF are restricted to 30 hours flying time per month because of defence cuts and gunners in the Royal Navy have resorted to shouting "BANG!" on firing exercises because there aren't enough shells to fire off to train them. On top of this the British Army has now been reduced to 25 regular infantry battalions. 25!!!!!!! Last I heard the US Army was upset because their infantry had been cut down to 25 DIVISIONS!!!!! It's enough to make me puke, it really is. If and when the new Iraqi war starts, don't expect anything more than a token presence from us, because we've got a less well manned and less well equipped armed forces than your average high-school. (Did I mention the cheap and shitty SA80 rifle the British Army uses, jams in the desert and rots in the jungle?)

 

[coolman]

george w bush...

bush IS plunging into this headfirst. he knew that americans wanted a war in afghanistan, so that's what he gave 'em. that was a relatively easy victory for the US forces: the taliban was weak, unorganised and a lot of other things beside that.The yanks went in with the b-52s and that was that. bush also had the backing of most of NATO.

iraq, however, is an entirely different story. saddam is well equipped, pehaps even with chemical weapons. he has many more men and much more control than the afghan leadership. so far, only britain has made hints that IT will support the USA. remember, saddams' soldiers shoot at childeren and he has let off chemicle weapons on his own people before now.

chances are america will win a war with iraq, but at what cost? there wasn't a threat of a biological attack from al-quada (or however you spell it), but now there is.

i watched a documentary last night about the kurds in iraq suffering, and i have realised something must be done now, because the UN and WHO are useless. im not saying that war is necessary, just something to stop saddam before it gets any worse.

ps thanks for all of your input.

 

[Admiral Trouser]

Killing Sadam would'nt solve a thing, and he himself isn't the threat....its his organisation, and unfortanately this one isn't the type that dies quietly when you remove its head.
Sadam gets killed. Great. Unfortanetley, he becomes a martyr in his country, and some lucky fellow takes his place and vows revenge on the Western world. As an aside, Iraq currently has enough weapons-grade plutonium to make three nuclear devices, and possesses missiles that can carry them to as far as Isreal with ease.
Speaking of Isreal, the above point has been aptly demonstrated in that godforsaken part of the world...almost every week a founding member or key figure of some palistinian terrorist group is taken out, but it rarely does any damage: it only hardens palastine resolve against Isreal and gives them one more reason to justify another revenge-attack.
We need a massive ground war in Iraq to sort this out: yes, take Saddam out if we must, but his organisation is what we should be gunning for, and as Clinton demonstrated some years back, cruise missiles aren't going to solve the problem. We're going to have to get wet, as one person put it.

 

[BigJim]

Good point Coolman. The UN is totthless and impotent, much like my old beagle. It's a crap organisation that's biased in the direction of certain member nations and the UK and the US would be much better deep sixing the lot of em. (That means resigning, NOT nuking the other members.)

 

[coolman]

i dunno how well you know your history jim, but before the UN there was the 'League of Nations' set up after WW1. it tried to unite all the nations as a whole, and prevent further war. the truth was that it didn't do jack shit, and it allowed japan to take a part of south korea, and then allowed italy to invade the african country of abysinnia. after that it was totally ignored and was useless in preventing WW2, which started a few years later.

the point was that, altough its intentions were good, the League could never cut it. japan and italy didn't give two shits about the other countries, just themselves. the basic fatc is that you can't please everyone.

this is EXACTLY what the UN is trying to do. in Iraq, all the medicines are strictly controlled by the UN: they don't want saddam to have ANYTHING that can be turned into a chemical weapon. but they also want the iraqis to stop suffering. great, says the western world. not great says the iraqis, dying of cancers that could be cured, but can't, thanks to the medical restrictions.

if we go to war, it will be much like what happened to the league of nations, and the UN will be pretty fucked anyway.

 

[BigJim]

I know about the League of Nations alright and it was only slightly less toothless than the UN. The biggest problem was it didn't have any military clout and could only reccomend what nations should do as far as embargoes and sanctions went. It wouldn't even do that unless it had a unanimous vote and as Italy and Japan were both members and had votes, it was powerless to do anything to either contry's depredations.

 

[Strelnikov]

Note to Jim: The US Army's Order of Battle includes 10 (not 25) Regular divisions of all kinds, plus some independent brigades and regiments. Some of which (e. g. 2nd Inf Div in Korea, V Corps in Germany) could not be redeployed for political reasons. Others are distributed in penny packets in various third world shit holes (e. g. Sinai, Bosnia) plus the troops in Afghanistan. Yah, we've got the power, but our resources aren't infinite.

You observe accurately that the UK needs to spend more on defense. But the UK is the European leader in that respect. Post-9/11, the US defense budget was increased about $50 billion bucks. That increase is more than the total spent by ANY NATO COUNTRY except the UK. Is it any wonder that US leaders think Europeans are irrelevant to the war effort?

After the initial conquest, the occupation of Iraq could be made to pay for itself. They have oil, after all. Post-WWII occupation forces in Germany and Japan collected taxes, we could do the same in Iraq.

It doesen't much matter who rules Saudi as regards oil. The only thing holding the lid on there is govt spending. If they cut off the oil, the money goes away and the people will rise up and shoot all 30,000 members of the Royal Family. The new govt will then sell us oil, or the people will rise up and shoot THEM.

IMO more good than harm would come of Saddam's overthrow. If we succeed in creating a democratic Iraq (and there's plenty of money available to do it with), it could have a domino effect on the other tin-pot dictators in the Middle East. Who knows, maybe the Arabs would finally enter the 20th Century (21st is too much to expect.)

Strelnikov

 

[Deleted member 2452]

just get rid of sadam

i know spelled it wrong on purpose. that the way G. bush said it back during the gulf war 11 years ago. it means a camal groomer, lol.
i say just kill the s.o.b., and leave it at that. just give the new leader a warning, this will happen to you too, if you aren't our bitch. also what was said before was true. all the arab countries that were part of the coalition back in '91 demanded that we not kill sadam, and leave him in power! so blame this curent mess on the rag heads. the saudi's didn't want the kurds to have any freedom any more than sadam, or turkey, or iran. go figure.
steve