Should we bomb/strike Iraq

[Michael Murphy]

Should we attack Iraq? Honestly I don't know.

We believe that Iraq is stockpiling chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons. We don't know, so we're sending inspectors. But how effective can these inspectors be? Asking permission before we inspect is like the police phoning ahead before they search a suspected crackhouse. Whether there was anything there or not, you're not going to find anything.

Yes, a deterrence. Look at this from Iraq’s point of view. You’re stuck in the middle of the desert, people don’t like you, and not too far away there’s a place called Israel which is armed to the teeth with weapons, some of them being nuclear weapons. That seems like a bad situation, does it not? A deterrence sounds like a decent alibi to me.
-Bill Gold

Bill, did you ever wonder why Israel is "armed to the teeth?" Iraq isn't the only country in the area surrounded by enemies with a history of being attacked. Ever hear of the Six Days War?

And about Russia and China... Do they want to attack Chechnya and Taiwan? Yes. Would they love to seize on U.S. actions as an excuse? Yes. Here I agree with Bill and Foto.

The main issue I have with Saddam Hussein is trust. At no point has he ever given the Untied States reason to trust him. On the other hand, I can think of a few reasons (Kuwait, the massacre of Iraq's Kurdish minority, the creation of chemical and biological weapons) that the dictator in Baghdad warrants at least close observation, if not outright removal.

I'm not saying I trust our own government much, either. But the problems in our government are our own doing. We routinely elect people into office that, quite frankly, we wouldn't trust to watch our children.

And on a side note... If the U.S. does invade Iraq and replace Hussein, no precedent would be set. This wouldn't be the first time an unfriendly government has been replaced with one more friendly to another country's interests. Note Afghanistan and Central America in recent times, and historically, Athens, Rome, and many other Ancient empires set up governments in neighboring countries to better suit their interests.

[FotoPlasma]

Originally posted by Michael Murphy
Insert Michael Murphy's post here.

If I weren't so depressed, I would have replied with something along these lines, but I'm just going to try to stay out of this thread, from now on...

As someone who would like to think he knows Bill quite well, I would say that Bill knows exactly why Isreal is "armed to the teeth." They have a very @!#@!#@!#@!# good reason to be heavilly armed, too, in my humble opinion...

<stream type="consciousness">

I think that the United States Government has done a lot of stupid stuff.

I don't agree with a lot of the actions they take, or the views they hold.

I want the world to be a better place.

I want to be able to make a difference.

I want to be able to make someone in this world happy.

I want to be able to make everyone in this world happy.

I don't want to be ashamed of the actions of my country.

I don't want to be ashamed of the views of my fellow Americans.

"The only enemy of democracy is a silent citizenship."

I will be eligible to vote in the next presidential election.

I am going to contribute to my government.

I will do what I think will make America, and the world, a better place, if not for myself, then for everyone else.

I am not the only person on the face of the Earth.

I care for them all...

</stream>

[Kristina]

Considering there are totally random threads about just about everything, I don't really see the problem about discussing this topic as long as people are respectful to each other. I think these debates are awesome and there are many valid viewpoints from both sides. I think that some very knowledgable people (ie: Bill Gold, I'm impressed and must say that I agree on most of your points!) are teaching those less informed people a thing or two.
At my last Bruin Democrat meeting (yeah yeah, I'm giving away my political association) we had the same kind of debate and again, there was healthy debate from both sides of the coin which I thought was very informative and entertaining.

As a poli sci scholar I think its important for all of us to keep up to date with world news and actually think about what's being reported to us by the media instead of simply accepting everything. So as long as people are being mature, I say this is great and keep it going...but hey, that's just my opinion.

[Bill Gold]

I started working on this post a while before FotoPlasma posted, but I'd like to thank him for his support.

Asking permission before we inspect is like the police phoning ahead before they search a suspected crackhouse. Whether there was anything there or not, you're not going to find anything.
-Michael Murphy

Well, that’s the US’ and the UN’s fault for not thinking ahead when they were negotiating / writing up the resolutions following the Gulf War. T.S. is all I have to say.

Bill, did you ever wonder why Israel is "armed to the teeth?" Iraq isn't the only country in the area surrounded by enemies with a history of being attacked. Ever hear of the Six Days War?
-Michael Murphy

No. I never wondered why Israel was as I put it, "...armed to the teeth..." I know the history of the state of Israel. Yes, I know about the Six Day War, but how does that help prove your point? Is it to try to prove that "Iraq isn't the only country in the area surrounded by enemies with a history of being attacked." If that's the case, then you're making a mistake in your logic. Iraq isn't surrounded by enemy nations, and it hasn't been attacked in years (I forget which country attacked the other first in the Iran/Iraq War). In fact, recently most of the Arab nations in that area of the world have pledged their support for Iraq in opposition to the US threat of military action. What I meant by my statement was that the Arab nations in that region do not have nuclear weapons, and the fact that Israel does weighs heavily on the other countries. If Iraq (or any other Arab nation in that area) were to have nuclear weapons, it might even the playing field in that area, so to speak.

The main issue I have with Saddam Hussein is trust. At no point has he ever given the Untied States reason to trust him.
-Michael Murphy

Well, in the 1980's, Saddam was the mean s.o.b. he is today, but Ronald Reagan thought he was worthy of our aid. We trusted him then, just like we trusted Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets, so, you're wrong. There was (and possibly will be) a point in time where he is deemed trustworthy by our government.

If the U.S. does invade Iraq and replace Hussein, no precedent would be set. This wouldn't be the first time an unfriendly government has been replaced with one more friendly to another country's interests. Note Afghanistan and Central America in recent times, and historically, Athens, Rome, and many other Ancient empires set up governments in neighboring countries to better suit their interests.
-Michael Murphy

Actually, I disagree with you once again. If you're talking about the Ancient Empires, that's exactly what they were... Ancient Empires. I think we can all agree that lifestyles, the aggregate intelligence of the human race, and governmental policy has changed a bit since Ancient times, so I’ll leave that out of this conversation. If the US took unilateral action against Iraq it would set a precedent. Michael Murphy, my interpretation of your post tells me that you accepted this (either knowingly or not) by recognizing and agreeing that the Russians and Chinese would have a good case for taking action against Georgia, Chechen Rebels, and Taiwan if the US were to attack Iraq without a UN mandate. The precedent that I’m referring to can be characterized by a phrase as loosely interpreted as the following: A country can take military action against another sovereign nation if it poses a risk to the safety of the original country. Don’t you all see how much trouble this statement can cause? Every country on Earth poses a risk to the safety of any other country! I don’t like this, and none of you should approve of it either. Athens fell, The Roman Empire fell a couple times, The Egyptian Empire fell, The Ottoman Empire fell, The Austro-Hungarian Empire fell, The Incas were wiped out, the Mayans were killed, the Aztecs were defeated, and The British Empire lost a tremendous amount of territory. Maybe the US will still be the strongest country in the world when I die (hopefully many years from now), but that isn’t a foregone conclusion. So why are we willing to risk the future sovereignty of this country by setting such a dangerous precedent? Maybe we’re just too damned full of ourselves. Our country can lose wars too, don’t think we can ride roughshod over everyone in the world. Ok. Done for now.

PS - As I'm wrapping up this post, I just saw that Doanie8 had just posted. I'd like to thank her for kind words as well. I look forward to my next post in this thread (if it remains open).

<edit>
My parents had interesting sets of comments I thought I'd add to this post...

<Bill's Dad>
The guy (Saddam) is 65 years old. He'll be dead in 20 years. What's the rush? Just sit tight and wait. The problem will go away by itself. And that's assuming that he doesn't get killed (by rebels) first.
</Bill's Dad>
<Bill's Mom>
Desert Storm weakened Saddam so much that if the UN would continue their weapons inspections as is, he would be in a similar situation as Moamar Kadafi (sp?) after the US bombed him in the 1980's. He's (Kadafi) still in charge, but hasn't been able to do anything significant since then.
</Bill's Mom>
</edit>

[Joel Glidden]

/sigh

I'll refrain from posting opinion here. Instead, I'll present what may prove to be enlightening reading.

-Joel

[FotoPlasma]

Originally posted by Joel Glidden
I'll refrain from posting opinion here.

This is exactly the place where this kind of thing should not happen. This forum, I would assume, is practically dedicated to each of our individual opinions, and if you're going to outright state this kind of thing, you'd just better not post.

[Ashley Weed]

Originally posted by tjrage_25
And "for the record," everything bad so far that has happened to the Bush administration was set in place during the Clinton administration (ie: Enron, 9/11, economic recession). Clinton screwed up this country big time, it's just now showing the effects.

I couldn't of said it better, and that is exactly what I meant by saying, "We have been sitting around watching for too long."
Beginning with Bush Sr., we did not take action. The U.S. has just sat around and 'observed'. We have been taken advantage of. Then the Clinton Administration just caused more problems, and we are now seeing the effects of them. It's time for America to stand up for itself, and take action!

[Kristina]

Originally posted by weedie


I couldn't of said it better, and that is exactly what I meant by saying, "We have been sitting around watching for too long."
Beginning with Bush Sr., we did not take action. The U.S. has just sat around and 'observed'. We have been taken advantage of. Then the Clinton Administration just caused more problems, and we are now seeing the effects of them. It's time for America to stand up for itself, and take action!

Just to playing devil's advocate (hey, just practicing to be a lawyer) here, not singling anyone out. But you say that the clinton administration caused all the problems right? Well you're sorta contradicting yourself by saying that Bush Sr. just sat around and Clinton cause "more problems." In stating "more problems" you're infering that problems were started before his administration.

ahhh...look at what boredom does to me! Must read poli sci book, must read poli book.

[Adam Y.]

I'm saying appeasement sucks. Why would anyone even want to have him in power makes no sense to me.

. Because our government told you that Saddam has been plotting to kill Americans with his weapons. Or maybe it was because our government has told you that Iraq and Al Queda have had close contact over the past couple years. Well, I don’t trust my government and I’d like to see this “undeniable proof.”

Sigh... There is something called the news. There job is to coroborate the information from the government and make sure its true. There has been credible news stories that are trickling in that show that he needs to been booted.

If the United States takes unilateral action against Iraq, we will practically be opening the gate for Russia to invade Georgia (no, not the state north of Florida), and China to invade Taiwan.

Lol wouldn't that be ironic for Russia to break a UN resoulotion.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...414oct07.story The source. Of course many countries are on that list. A UN resolution sometimes means nothing.Of course we all don't have any idea what the president is trying to do. For all we know all this talk about war will scare the Iraqi govornment into assasinating Hussein. Maybe there will be a revolt.

[Ian W.]

i honestly don't see the point to attack iraq. if anything, that will just screw up the situation in the middle east more than it already is. plus, we already have troops in afghanistan. next we'll have troops in iraq. then what, iran? maybe some other country that just so happens to have a majority of muslims and a dictator ruling? if the US was to take any action against iraq, it should be getting rid of the trade embargo, and making nice. then guess what, the iraqis get happy, cause they have food and other things needed for daily life. by doing tht it shows the US might care about more than just freaking oil.

hell, if you really wanted to topple the current regime in iraq, get a bunch of boys who are around 18, bring them to the US, and teach them about democracy. they go home and tell their families about this mythical democracy, and soon enough, you have a revolution. ok, yeah, it assumes that a lot happens, but it's better than going in and blowing up iraq. NO ONE wins in war. take the two world wars for example. the allies "won" both wars, but what did they win? europe was destroyed both times, france took a huge beating, and millions, if not billions, of dollars have been put into the european economy to fix it. take a look at the "bad guys". they all lost, and died. take a look at the innocent people (this is more for WWII), mostly the jews, and the other 5 million people killed (gypsies, gays, etc). they certainly didn't win anything.

i guess what i'm trying to get at here is that i hate war. i hate the idea of going and killing people, just because they are "bad" cause someone higher than you said they were. i see no point in going and fighting someone else's war. i believe that Judiasm has a nice little law on this. i'm not exactly sure, but i do remember from one sermon or another that the Rabbi said that Judiasm states that you shall not attack another nation for any reason, but if they attack you, you can retaliate in self defense. iraq has not threatened us. they have not attacked us. we have no reason, nor right, to go in and blow up everything, again.

another story i remember from somewhere, which also ties into the fact that there is no reason this shouldn't be on chief delphi (i think).

there was these two countries at war. but instead of sending soldiers, they sent the children. the children got to the battlefield, and they walked out to the middle. they saw that the children on the other side were the same as themselves. so, instead of killing them, they all took out their food, and sat down and had lunch, and played, and so on. the adults saw this, and realized that they had nothing different between them, and all because of the children, the war was stopped.

now, i'm not sure where the heck that came from, but i like it. it shows in plain detail why we shouldn't attack iraq, and why there shouldn't be war in the first place.

one more thing i find somewhat interesting. Locke, who's political philosophies make up much of the Constitution, said that it is the right of the people to rebell and destroy the government if the government does not take care of the people's rights. one could see the "homeland security" as just that, thereby making a revolution "legal" according to Locke. now, you can't come and spurt forth Hobbs, cause the Constitution isn't based on Hobbs. so it's another interesting point to think about.

i think i'm done rambling now, if you have any questions interpretting my gibberish, feel free to ask.

[DanLevin247]

Bill, what you said makes sence. But lucky me, thanks to a messed up back...I can never be drafted.

[Ian W.]

somthing interesting i just found...

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA0IKLE07D.html

the purpose of the speech is to make people like me, bill, jim, and dan (just a few names i remember) and everyone else WANT to attack iraq for whatever reason this idiot we call president can think of (actually, it's not even his words, it's some person who gets paid to write his speechs). so, if we can't see the speech live, i guess we can't be pushed to attack iraq. and isn't the job of the president to protect and SERVE the people of the US of A? he sure as hell isn't serving me by attack iraq, wasting tax dollars, and pissing off the world even more.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

another news item i just found. i believe it was bill's dad that said give it 20 years, and he'll be dead. i'd say much sooner, if that article is true.

[Joel Glidden]

Saddam has a gun pointed at our collective heads, people. He's been loading it with some nasty rounds since the seventies. He has openly stated and displayed his willingness to pull the trigger. Did you read the dossier that I linked?

You may not feel 'served' by GW's actions. But you had better be thankful that he's protecting you. You give me the impression you'd be unwilling to do that for yourself.

How's that for opinion, Foto? Congrats. You got it out of me.

-Joel
(one who has both served and protected)

[Bill Gold]

…The Clinton Administration was a joke…
-weedie

Not that this has anything to do with the train of thought in this thread, or even the original meaning of the thread, but why do you say this? Clinton’s policies led to government surpluses as well as a decrease in the national debt. What’s so funny about that? Let me point you towards this post. If you want to talk about the pros and cons of administrations let’s do that, but let’s not sidetrack our conversation about Iraq, and to a lesser degree terrorism in general.

… These things take planning, even if we did pick up on it, we learned our lesson. There…
-tjrage_25

We learned our lesson? In your dreams. This country is still as vulnerable to a terrorist attack now, as it was back on September 11, 2001. The only difference between now and then is that I have to take my shoes and my hat off when I get on a plane flight. If terrorists had 5-8 fairly buff guys on a plane today, they could easily overpower the crew and passengers unarmed. Terrorists could easily destroy state capital buildings without much trouble. Even if we “learned our lesson” it doesn’t matter, because there are always new ways of killing people and reeking havoc.

/sigh

I'll refrain from posting opinion here. Instead, I'll present what may prove to be enlightening reading.
-Joel Glidden

Saddam has a gun pointed at our collective heads, people. He's been loading it with some nasty rounds since the seventies. He has openly stated and displayed his willingness to pull the trigger. Did you read the dossier that I linked?
-Joel Glidden

Pointing a gun at our collective heads? I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken. Saddam’s weapons do not have the ability to reach US soil, and no, I don’t see an old man holding a gun at my head. Those nasty rounds you’re referring to I would assume are his biological weapons, no? Yeah, that’s some unpleasant stuff he’s got in or near his hands. No one’s denying that. There are quite a few other countries on Earth who have equal if not more dangerous (quantity and quality) weapons at their disposal. So why are we ganging up on Saddam when we could be talking about North Korea, Pakistan, etc.?

In that dossier that you so kindly linked, read page 3 paragraphs 4 and 5. It’s basically saying what I had previously posted. To paraphrase “We’ve got this undeniable evidence, but we can’t tell you where we’re getting it from. Oh… we can’t tell you what some of it is either.” Well, if this is supposed to be evidence against Saddam, and it is necessary to prove that we must cripple his programs, then why is it kept secret from those who need to be persuaded? It’s not like it is information that Saddam doesn’t already know about. It is information that needs to be put on display around the world so that there is no doubt that Saddam needs to be removed or that his weapons programs need to be eliminated. This whole cloak and dagger game that the US and Britain are playing is a bunch of bull.

Why would anyone even want to have him in power makes no sense to me.
-wysiswyg

Guess what? You’ve got no say in whether or not he’ll remain in power. Plus, it’s not even about the people of Iraq wanting him in power. He’s like Castro or any other dictator, he took power, and he’s trying to stay in power as long as possible. Besides, not everyone thinks like you.

Sigh... There is something called the news. There job is to coroborate the information from the government and make sure its true. There has been credible news stories that are trickling in that show that he needs to been booted.
-wysiswyg

Ok. Get something straight here. Yes, there is something called the news, but it isn’t what you think. The news media isn’t this glorified source of truth that you claim. The news media is just like any other business. They want money. Television stations like CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. are all trying to give you something to watch, so that they can sell commercial time to other businesses. Also, (in my not so humble opinion) CNN is what the stupid people watch in an attempt to make themselves look learned. The “corroboration” that you’re talking about is done by attending press conferences held by the masters of the lie, Press Secretaries. Yes, it’s corroboration… if by corroboration you mean bending over so that the government can get you to believe what they want you to believe. My suggestion to you all is to take what you hear from our local media outlets with a grain of salt. Look around the world news to find your truth. Check the BBC (sometimes, since they like to bend over to the US Government from time to time), check TF1 (France), check out what the Germans, Russians, Chinese, Italians, Spaniards, etc. are saying. Don’t be so short sighted.

You may not feel 'served' by GW's actions. But you had better be thankful that he's protecting you. You give me the impression you'd be unwilling to do that for yourself.
-Joel Glidden

He’s protecting me? I find that hard to believe. Where was he when California needed price ceilings imposed against Enron? Oh, I know. He was hanging out with Ken Ley. If Bush was protecting us, then he’d be forcing Ley and others to give their millions of dollars to the poor employees who were bamboozled by the actions of the executives. President Bush is doing as good a job as Reagan/Bush #1/Clinton did in protecting us from Iraq. WE HAVEN’T BEEN ATTACKED. By the way, just because Ian says that he dislikes war, that doesn’t mean he isn’t willing to defend himself (or that he wouldn’t support our country defending itself if attacked). Sorry if I’m putting words in your mouth, Ian. This is where I get that impression though:

…i believe that Judiasm has a nice little law on this. i'm not exactly sure, but i do remember from one sermon or another that the Rabbi said that Judiasm states that you shall not attack another nation for any reason, but if they attack you, you can retaliate in self defense. iraq has not threatened us. they have not attacked us. we have no reason, nor right, to go in and blow up everything, again…
-Ian

Ok. Enough for now.

[Jim Giacchi]

Originally posted by Ian W.
hell, if you really wanted to topple the current regime in iraq, get a bunch of boys who are around 18, bring them to the US, and teach them about democracy. they go home and tell their families about this mythical democracy, and soon enough, you have a revolution.

That would work really well, right up to the point where he rounds them up and executes them all.

To the other ones who disagree with the attack on Iraq because it would set a bad precedent. I have this to say.
Panama - We attacked and split in half a sovereign nation because we wanted a canal.
Niguragua - We attacked because we wanted to oust Noriega. So the precedent has been set. We not only can go in, but have. In this case Saddam and Iraq poses the greatest threat ever, much greater than the threat posed by either of the two examples above.

"Pointing a gun at our collective heads? I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken. Saddam’s weapons do not have the ability to reach US soil"
---------Bill Gold
That's right they can't reach us. Who they can reach is his neighbors and Israel. What happens if he chooses to attack Kuwait again, or Saudi Arabia. His massive army could defeat those countries easily. This time however when we go to counterattack he sets off several nuclear weapons and destroys and kills thousands of American Soldiers. That's the threat. Not that he will attack us, but that he will use it as a shield against us.

"Where was he when California needed price ceilings imposed against Enron?" -------Bill Gold
This was caused by the eviromentalist who haven't allowed a new power plant or refinery to be built in twenty years. That's who you can blame for the energy crisis. Your lucky it isn't worse.