Why we shouldn't attack Iraq

me

[Michael2001]

Well it looks like it's going to happen. In less than six months many of my friends and family, along with one to three hundred thousand other Americans are going to war with Iraq and bring down a lunatic we should've brought down 10 years ago.

Saddam Hussein is an evil man, and no one (except for Islamomaniacs) will mourn his loss. However I don't believe that we should send our boys to this God forsaken part of the world to kill this "human being" and here's why:

Whoever comes after Saddam may be just as terrible as he is, or possibly even worse. And even if we are successful in instituting a friendly regime in Iraq, we still have 50 other Muslim nations that hate our guts.

More importantly, it is not the Iraqi military that is a threat to us, nor is it Saddam Hussein; the Iraqis cannot touch us as long as they are in Iraq. This is not a conventional war, we are threatened by the Muslims already living in this country, and the many Muslims who come here every year, the Muslims who are in Iraq constitute no threat at all.

How would I conduct this war on terror? Instead of sending our troops halfway across the earth to Iraq, I'd station them in this country to protect our borders from illegals. I would stop all legal immigration from Muslim countries, and I would keep close tabs on the Muslims already living here. The liberals would get upset, but I think it would have a much better chance of stopping another terrorist attack than taking out Saddam Hussein would.

I know it's not PC, but if we hadn't allowed any Muslims into this country to begin with, 3,000 Americans would still be alive, the twin towers would still be standing, and we wouldn't be sending hundreds of thousands of Americans into Iraq.

[Michael2001]

Just my two cents even though it won't matter. An attack on Iraq is imminent and no closing of our borders is in sight.

[TaxPayer2000]

Whoever comes after Saddam may be just as terrible as he is, or possibly even worse. And even if we are successful in instituting a friendly regime in Iraq, we still have 50 other Muslim nations that hate our guts.

thats like saying "let Hitler live because Herman Gehring might end up ruling Germany"

[Texasforever]

Just my two cents even though it won't matter. An attack on Iraq is imminent and no closing of our borders is in sight.

What is your plan for "closing the borders? Better yet what is your plan for rounding up the 8 million already here using 2000 INS agents?

[Bobby777]

Better yet what is your plan for rounding up the 8 million already here using 2000 INS agents?

Assuming Saddam doesn't already possess a nuclear weapon, and incapable of delivering same at an American Civilian / Military target, I'd say whatever the number are that are here and openly spout their hatred of America and wish to overthrow our government and kill our people are our primary domestic concern ... nonetheless, I have nothing against seeing National Guard rotations at the borders with Canada and Mexico ... we can't guard everything but here's something practical these guys can also do besides the airport duty ... I'm sure we don't have enough ...

[nopardons]

The National Guard ? Kent State revistied ? You've got to be joking !

You don't understand the " Arab Street ", nor what wonders, taking out Saddam would do. Rethink your position; please. :-)

[Int]

I'm glad to read your thoughts about attacking Iraq - good to see there still is some independent thinking here on FR! Just some comments though: You wrote that no one (except for Islamomaniacs) will mourn Evil Saddam's death. I disagree - the Islamomaniacs couldn't care less for Saddam, especially since he rules Iraq as a secular regime. From what I've read, OBL actually offered to fight on the side of Kuwait against Iraqi forces during the Gulf War!

As for keeping out all Muslims from the US: this may sound like an odd comparison but I think it is similar to the philosopy of banning all guns. The country has surely benefited from many quiet, honest, hard-working citizens some of which also happen to be Muslim.

From reading your profile you seem to be a man of real principle, which I admire. My comments are meant as friendly debate- not criticism. My 2¢.

[meenie]

Probably no one knows the real reason for taking out Sadaam other than some of our inside politicians. They probably know little of the structure of government after taking out Sadaam. They don't know here just what kind of political make-up we will have after the next election.

A question that keeps bugging me is what threats or reasons for taking out Sadaam do we have that we are not discussing with the public? Does he have a delivery system that we are unaware of? If so, this would necessitate an attack on Iraq. Is there a connection between Sadaam and 9/11? If so, this should be shared with the public as a reason for going after Sadaam.

In other words, I want some valid reasons for getting involved in any war and I think the people need an explanation. I do not feel it is unreasonable in a republic to have to justify actions that the administration feels are needed.

[wretchard]

"How would I conduct this war on terror? Instead of sending our troops halfway across the earth to Iraq, I'd station them in this country to protect our borders from illegals."

The terrorists among the illegals, like any other fighting force, need a secure rear area in which to train, receive funds, necessary supplies and obtain motivation and guidance. Without that, they will collapse into a rabble.

Every organization since time began needed these things. Without them, even the most fervent adherents lapse into the day to day, drift off and get married and find jobs. Iraq and other countries are center of the malevolence directed against us, without which no organized attack is possible.

Sealing the borders will never work, while aircraft land or ships dock or trains rattle through their appointed routes. A nuke can be set off in a ship before it reaches customs. A passenger or cargo aircraft can be preloaded with biological weapons in Arabia so that it can become a butterfly of death above our nation.

It is a regrettable fact that there isn't room enough on this planet for militant Islam and anyone else. The oceans aren't wide enough, nor any mountain range lofty enough to encompass their consuming hatred. They are burning up with it, like a fevered man, like a demon in hell. It is our curse, some would say our privilege, to stand between them and our children, and all the decent folk of this planet.

If there is more hatred to come, what of it? This is our time, and our fight.

Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods?"

[tm22721]

Assuming Saddam doesn't already possess a nuclear weapon

Saddam only has to claim that he has one stashed in NY since no American president would risk calling his bluff.

BUMP

[11B3]

You're incorrect in your assumption that the entire reason for invading Iraq is Saddam himself. It is his Baath party and their security forces that would actually be the targets since they control all of the WMD. Iraq also is one of the main states fomenting the infitada in Israel along with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iraq also threatens Jordan, and is allying with Syria as well as Libya. Missile parts are purchased through intermediaries from North Korea. Saddam and his sons are indeed secular, however they spend plenty of money on Islamic hired guns.

The main goal of attacking Iraq would be to once and for all insure that the chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons production facilities are destroyed. Not through some BS UN inspection program where Iraq calls the shots.

You should remember that this isn't simply a war on terrorism. That's the PC way of putting it. This is a war of cultures: Basically the US and Russia vs. Islam. Call it the Crusades v.2.0 if you want - but it all boils down to the fact that Muslims worldwide with only a few exceptions want to see our society crumble and those of us who survive converted to Islam. So who gives a $hit about what the camelhumpers "feel" about the US? We should be more concerned about how to make them feel nothing at all. Nothing but a nice pigskin wrapping as their bodies are buried in the sands.

[Ajnin]

We don't need troops on the border.

[Bobby777]

well, it's that or have the military patrolling the nation ... this is a pervasive threat no doubt brought to us by the fanatics ...

[Michael2001]

You wrote that no one (except for Islamomaniacs) will mourn Evil Saddam's death. I disagree - the Islamomaniacs couldn't care less for Saddam, especially since he rules Iraq as a secular regime.

They like him because he is our enemy. That at least is my impression.

The country has surely benefited from many quiet, honest, hard-working citizens some of which also happen to be Muslim.

Have we as a nation benefited from the Muslims in this country? I'd say that the costs of our Muslim population outweigh the benefits (and 9/11 is only the half of it).

I've always been interested in Islam, and I've only learned more since 9/11; they are a threat to Infidels, women, and themselves. At my Church's annual convention(I'm S. Baptist) one of our Pastors called Islam a Satanic religion, for which the media then called our Church bigots and Nazis. This is the same media that calls Islam a religion of peace. Had we only killed 3,000 Americans instead of speaking the truth, perhaps the media would be praising us as well.

[Michael2001]

The terrorists among the illegals, like any other fighting force, need a secure rear area in which to train, receive funds, necessary supplies and obtain motivation and guidance. Without that, they will collapse into a rabble. Every organization since time began needed these things. Without them, even the most fervent adherents lapse into the day to day, drift off and get married and find jobs. Iraq and other countries are center of the malevolence directed against us, without which no organized attack is possible.

Key words there being "and other countries". We can either declare war on almost the entire Islamic world, or we can focus on the Islamics in this country. I think the latter is simpler, will cost less lives, less resources, and will be more effective.

[Michael2001]

Iraq also is one of the main states fomenting the infitada in Israel along with Iran and Saudi Arabia.

I am a very strong supporter of Israel, but it is not our responsibility to send our own troops to fight their battles. If Israel was smart they'd do something similar to what I'm suggesting that we do; they have the capability to do so but are still too PC.

You should remember that this isn't simply a war on terrorism. That's the PC way of putting it. This is a war of cultures: Basically the US and Russia vs. Islam. Call it the Crusades v.2.0 if you want - but it all boils down to the fact that Muslims worldwide with only a few exceptions want to see our society crumble and those of us who survive converted to Islam.

I agree. But the 1 billion Muslims around the world are not a threat to us in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, or any of their other countries. They only threaten us when they are here, in our country. So I say instead of focusing on the one billion world Muslims let's focus on the few million that are already here, and make sure no more get in.

[DentsRun]

How would I conduct this war on terror? Instead of sending our troops halfway across the earth to Iraq, I'd station them in this country to protect our borders from illegals. I would stop all legal immigration from Muslim countries. . .

I don't think the problem is so much the ethnicity of legal immigrants as it is their lack of assimilation. It used to be that when immigrants came to this country they cast their lot with other Americans. They wanted to be Americans and for the most part it was true. I just read something recently where a woman said her (Italian-American) father and his four brothers all fought against Italy in WWII. With today's immigrants I'm not so sure that would happen. Some immigrants (and native born Americans too) put greater emphasis on their tribal loyalties than they do on being an American. What we have to tell these people is "We're glad to have you. Now you will have great opportunities and the same rights as everyone else. But in turn you must embrace your fellow Americans with at least as much fervor as you embrace other members of your religion or tribe."

[Michael2001]

A people whose religion commands them to convert or kill Infidels will always have trouble assimiliating.

[DentsRun]

A people whose religion commands them to convert or kill Infidels will always have trouble assimiliating.

That's true. But even people whose religion doesn't require them to kill Infidels are sometimes hostile to assimilation. I remember reading a piece by an American rabbi a couple of years who called intermarriage the new "holocaust." Even Jews who are not religious (my wife, for example) sometimes regard assimilation has a terrible tragedy. I asked my wife a couple of years ago what was so awful about assimilating into the great American ethnic torando. I pointed out that although I was a mixture of English, Irish, Italian and Swiss I was perfectly content to be called an American. She said she "pitied" me.

[Mark17]

At my Church's annual convention(I'm S. Baptist) one of our Pastors called Islam a Satanic religion

I like that pastor, because he is dead on the money.

[Fred Mertz]

Contrary to popular belief we're not going to invade Iraq.

It ain't in the cards.