Why War with Iraq? Or why against?

My Squash ^ | 9/18/2002 | Burkeman1

[Burkeman1]

Why do you think we should go to war against Iraq? Or why are you against such a war?

Take as much space as you need. But post a concise, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or essay and do not link to other sites.

This about why Freepers want war or oppose war.

And no personnal attacks. Everyone on this site is an American and loves this country.

[Texasforever]

The answer is simple; each attack is a message to the next country’s regime on the list. When that message sinks in then the war on terror has been won.

[Burkeman1]

Correct. Good analysis. But western culture has not penetrated to these people- both out of pride and censorship. Even Sub Saharan Africa shows more signs of western adoption than Islamic lands. They look to the radicals of Islam for their deliverance to their daily problems - not the west and our culture. You can count the number of pro western thinkers in Islam on one hand.

[Hunble]

Study a little history of how Americans act after we win a war.

Like it or not, the best thing that could ever happen to a country is for the U.S.A to kick their butts.

This is the fear of the Arab nations. Another Democratic country in our region along with Israel?

[Pining_4_TX]

Ah, now you're getting to the real reason we do the things we do in the Middle East - Israel. It's time we started to look out for US interests first. Besides, so far Saddam has mainly threatened Saudi Arabia, and we know what "good" friends to the US they are.

Second, none of the terrorists so far have been from Iraq. So, why not go after Yemen and Saudi Arabia, since that's where the breeding ground for terrorists is?

Third, our biggest threat comes from our porous borders. That is where we should concentrate our efforts. No more Muslims should be allowed into the US, and we should deport as many as we can ASAP.

Fourth, the argument that Saddam is a madman who is developing WMD's. Probably true, but you can say the same thing of North Korea, for one. Are we going to invade, conquer, and run the whole world?

Fifth, what happens after we kick their butts? We aren't having too much success in turning Afghanistan into a bastion of democracy and freedom, and we won't be successful doing this in Iraq. These people have a totally different worldview. They won't adopt western values.

Finally, and Freepers will flip on this one - I think Bush has an obsession with finishing the job his father didn't. With all the other threats and problems we have, why is he so adamant about taking out a third-rate dictator on the other side of the world? He is not our biggest problem right now, and the cost of this war in dollars and, more importantly, lives is too great.

Obviously, I am not a military person, but this war does not make sense to me, and I really feel sorry for our troops and their families who are being stretched to the limit.

[copycat]

We should remove Saddam because he does not recognize that all humans were created equal, with certain unalienable rights. If you believe in that, you know that Saddam is the enemy of everything America stands for.

The fact that he is a brutal dictator who kills and torures his enemies and that he supports the use of WMD against Jews and Americans is really just a convienient excuse to remove an evil man from power and liberate the people of Iraq.

[Fred Mertz]

Your post assumes war with Iraq is the ultimate objective. Wrong. The operative question is, "How do we effect a regime change in Iraq?"

This assumes we trust our leadership that a regime change is necessary. Personally, I don't buy it. Since they say they'll release the evidence after they start the war, I am insulted that they don't trust me to understand the threat I face.

To compare Hussein with Hitler is to compare a mouse with a cat.

War ain't going to happen anytime soon, I'll tell you that.

[Burkeman1]

You have the same instinct as everyone else on this site. Iraq has a less developed WMD program than any country surrouding it. Does anyone here believe that Saudi Arabia does not have it's own nuke progam right now? Iran does and even the Pro Iraq war Weekly Standard said so! Iraq is a staging ground for a larger presence in the region and for the long term. We are not leaving Bosnia or Kosovo soon. Nor will we leave Iraq either if we invade. But what is after that?

[Fred Mertz]

Oh, I forgot to add, Saddam is one of the last standing up against the new world order. That is not permitted these days.

[Burkeman1]

I agree. Thank you.

[oldtimer]

Read THE HAJ by Leon Uris.

The lazy ragheads and their culture tells the story.

They hate the Jews , even when the Jews feed them.

I believe Uris (who is a Jew) is correct.

[copycat]

In fact all governments that do not believe in "government by the people, of the people, and for the people", and that "all humans were created equal with certain unalienable rights" should eventually be replaced with representative republics.

[Seeker204]

For now, I think we should just send in the inspectors and hope for the best (for Saddam's own ppl to depose of him). Why? Because the rest of the world views you as a bully. Always. Invading Iraq for any reason is BAD. Understand? Bad. You think you can go it alone? America is not alone. Taking care of Saddam isn't going to do any good in the long run. Always think of the long run. Also I think the threat of a nuclear or biological attack against America is HIGHLY unlikely. Why would he? Because he feels threatened?

[palmer]

I learned last week that we need onsite inspections, at least in theory since satellite detection isn't adequate. So as in the case of N. Korea I would offer carrots. As we help them build reactors, we could offer to drop the economic sanctions against Iraq in exchange for complete inspections.

They would have to be internationally based and allow inspections of any sites deemed to be possible production or storage sites.

[Burkeman1]

Sadaams regime has the largest population of Christians that can still freely worship and even Jews. The women in Iraq can drive cars, go to school and College and hold professions. That is so much more than can be said for our "allies" it is sickening. My Uncle worked in Saudi Arabia for 25 years. When he went to Baghdad under Sadaam it was like breathing fresh free air. Know your facts. The regimes we back our just as if not more repressive than Iraq. This war has nothing to do with "freedom" at all.

[nunya bidness]

Your post assumes war with Iraq is the ultimate objective. Wrong. The operative question is, "How do we effect a regime change in Iraq?"

Leave it up to Pooty-poot and Bush to negotiate the trade strategy and the problem will solve itself.

Meanwhile....

We're going to Yemen!

[habs4ever]

So, because Saddam gives a well timed forearm shiv to the UN, that makes him partially...righteous? Is that what you mean you by him standing up to the NWO, which could mean anything to those that live in the fever swamps?

[Hunble]

Once again, you have forgotten Israel in this equation.

And darn right, I would personally fight to protect the lives of the innocent Israel citizens.

What the heck do you think being a loyal friend implies?

[AM2000]

Iraq has a less developed WMD program than any country surrouding it.

I think the issue has more to do with the fact that Saddam hates us. We did, after all, take Kuwait away from him and we have made it very difficult for him to make money because of our sanctions. Nukes aren't such a big deal... nukes in the hands of a man who has every reason to use them against us is.

I just think Saddam's more prone to a megalomaniacal gesture with his nukes than the Saudis or even the Mullahs of Tehran. We should have taken him out in Desert Storm, quite frankly. Then we wouldn't be in this position to have to choose between the war on terror and Iraq.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

And no personnal attacks. Everyone on this site is an American and loves this country.

He He He yea right !