BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:30 PM

Assuming for the moment that this is a quick and dirty war with no WMD defensive retaliations and that the mid-East doesn't flare into a conflagration that engulfs and burns all of us, what then?

In the current Time magazine, Joe Klein writes:

There should be no illusions of the difficulty of Mesopotamian nation building. It has been attempted many times before, by many other superpowers, and none - none - has ever succeeded. The last one to try was England. Winston Churchill, a superhawk hero of the 20th centruy, ran the occupation, saw the futility of it and favored retreat. "We are paying 8 millions a year," he wrote his Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, in 1922, "for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano."

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Frankham
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 11:35 PM

No! As Pogo used to say, "We have met the enemy and it is us."

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:27 AM

wdyat24, Bush's interpretation of the Golden Rule is, "Those who have the gold make the rules."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 01:21 AM

Beccy, Yes, I agree with you. But you must keep in mind that most of these folks wouldn't agree that war was the way to settle the problem with Saddam if it were proven that he supplied the terrorist with the vial of anthrax that killed thousands of people in one of our major cities. Geeze, that's a long sentence isn't it?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 01:42 AM

But, Doug, you mean that if there is a remote possibility that he might, we should go to war against him? Apply that same line of reasoning to all of the threats that we face and see how absurd it is.

Among other things, if Saddam indeed has a supply of anthrax or small pox or botulin or, for that matter, nuclear weapons, I can't think of a better way to guarantee that he would use them.

There are a lot better ways to go about neutralizing Saddam Hussein than to go to war. It's like the incompetent carpenter who only knows how to use a hammer. To him, every problem looks like a nail.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 02:06 AM

And Don, remember the creed of that typr of carpenter and craftsman..........."If the tool you're using doesn't work, try a bigger hammer."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Stewie
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 02:18 AM

I don't normally contribute to non-music threads but, the other day, I saw a television clip of an American soldier training in Kuwait. He said something along the lines of: 'We've got the equipment, and we're ready to play with Saddam or whoever' - and then laughed gleefully. That just about sums up the stance of Bush and his coterie of war-mongering maniacs. God help us all and, more particularly, the innocent Iraquis who are already suffering the effects of Saddam's reign and cruel sanctions.

--Stewie.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 06:19 AM

The result of a British TV [ITV] Poll this morning showed that 81% did not believe Powells speech on Iraq.
Sorry, US, but not one country in Europe backs your war, and an Australian poll also went against the US with 61% against , this was contrary to The New York Times which stated that the Australians were with Bush.
But the downside to this opposition is that some of those countries governments back the US, the economic gun to the head works wonders. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 08:33 AM

I don't do polls but I don't know too many folks in the US who beleive Powell either; not here at the Cat or in my area. And I live in a conservative area of the country. Night before last my wife received an email for the wife of a conservative member to the very conservative Loudoun County Board of Supervisor. They are both very worried about Bush and these folks are living in the 3rd wealtiest county in the US anfd he is a conservative politican. Go figure. I think that their is a chink in the armor.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 08:36 AM

Fionn, you have heard all the arguments put better than I could. It has been debated here and I have things on my mind just now. But I have always admired your posts as the most thoughtful and balanced on this forum, so i will not duck your direct question.
Saddam is a tyrant in the mould of Hitler and Stalin. He has dragged a country with the worlds second largest oil reserves into poverty through misrule, and embarking on disastrous wars against his neighbours.
Even under sanctions he is allowed to sell oil for food and medicines. Instead he squanders it on dozens of obscenely lavish and sprawling palaces, and on weapons programs, leaving his people in some parts to starve or die for want of basic medications.
Similar monsters such as chaucescou have been toppled because there were men and women willing to risk their lives to liberate their own countries. Few would be brave enough to risk the lives of their extended family as well, and to see their daughters gang raped and slaughtered before their own execution.
How loathed must he be to need to do this to stay in power?
How evil to stoop to it?
When a minister questioned one of his schemes, Sadaam casually shot him. Now every maniacal idea is hailed as his most brilliant and insightful, making him ever more unstable.
This man threatens the stability of the region.
He has ambitions to be a great Arab leader. Secular regime, but building mosques faster than any nation, and Saddam having himself shown at prayer, to aid his schemes.
There ara Islamic democracies. I do not believe that Arabs are congenitally unsuited to it, they have just never had the chance.
I say again, I think the ordinary Iraqi will bless us.
If I am wrong, I will grovel on this forum.
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 08:56 AM

A minor point, but not insignificant. About the one thing most ofvthe people posting here, on whateber side of the argument, is that the presence of posts by anonymous GUESTs are an unwelcome distraction. Regardless of what they might say. The medium is the m essage in this case.

I think the bottom line in this is: What would "Bin Laden" want to happen in this situation? And it seems to me clear as daylight that what he'd want would be for the inspection teams to be pulled out, and for US and the UK to launch a massive attack on Iraq.

On September 11 massive destruction and loss of life was achieved and a potential division between "the West" and "Islam" was opened, by means of a few people taking advantage of American civiian technology.

If there's this war essentially the same thing will happen, on a vastly greater scale, making use of American military technology. Massive destruction and loss of life, and the enormous widening of that breach bettween "the West" and "Islam" .

Septenber 11 cost the lives of a couple of dozen supporters. The Iraq war will cost the lives of a few tens or hundreds of thousands of people who might possibly have become supporters if they had survived. An acceptable price.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 09:12 AM

Kevin, I hope and believe that you are wrong about the scale of the losses.
Last time his soldiers mostly were not prepared to fight for him. I do not think they love him more now. The attack on the Basra road was tragically not stopped in time, but I trust that lessons have been learned.
The eyes of the world will be on us, and Saddam ready to exploit every civillian casualty. That alone would force the allies to go to all lengths to keep the people safe.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 09:27 AM

Keith:

The US military has ellready purposely leaked their plans to drop 3000 bombs on Iraq in the 1st 48 hours. Yeah, in leaking this info they are trying to desensitize the public to the viciosness of their their battle plan. And that's just Step One.

Step Two calls for an armored and infantry assault on the Iraqi army which has allready told the world that it will retreat into the major population centers. Now we're going to see a street fight, building to building, Iraqi bi Iraqi. In the Wsahington Post this week there was a photo of some grsay haired old women woith Ak-47's. One looked as if she could be my grandmother! I was just thinking, "Man, how has it come to this?"

I don't agree about wityh PR that these folks will view the US troops as liberators. After two days of intensive bombings and every family in Iraq having lost a parent, sibling or child in the the bombings, one can bet that "grannie" ain't going to greet the troops with a plate of chocolate chip cookies. No, it's gonna be lead and lots of it.

Now what really pisses me off is that when I ask myself what has the current administration done diplomatically since it took office to promote peace in the Middle East I can't think of one danged thing. They came into office with their guns drawn and their tongues flapping and haven't taken so much as a breath since. That's the horror of this situation.

Resist insanity.

Resist Warmongering.

Resist the Bush Regime.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,withaya45220332
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 09:39 AM

I think, if not happen war will very well because to be not in trouble peoples. I do not want a war and to see people two sides die. What happens when two leaders collide? If the war occurs, will to affect all two factions no matter who will winner. Those are in trouble immaculate people. If no war, it will be very good. I believe that no war happen if two factions think more than this to immaculate people.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: JennyO
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 10:17 AM

I live in Sydney, Australia - in fact I live in Bennelong electorate, our not-so-illustrious Prime Minister's electorate.

Here is part of an editorial in our local paper:

'Prime Minister John Howard has committed Australian Defence Forces in support of United States military in the Middle East as a threat to attack Iraq.

Fewer than ten percent of a survey in last Sunday's Sun-Herald supported the Prime Minister's stance. Most could not see it was so urgent as officials generally agree Iraq does not have the resources to use such weapons if they do exist for at least three to five years.

....The main argument the Americans have used is rhetoric with very little factual evidence. The "axis of evil" claim blew up in the president's face when one of his former speechwriters claimed authorship for it. And then President Bush withdrew his threats against North Korea even though they have claimed and are known to possess deadly weapons.

This can only further the cries by the sceptics that the oilfields of Iraq have a greater priority.

Our Prime Minister's chief concern appears to be by his own admission that it is to suck up to our prime defence alliance partner and friends. But you don't buy friendship. And certainly not with the blood of your sons and daughters in the services.

....Whether Iraq has terrible weapons of mass destruction isn't really an issue. We all know they've had them because the USA gave them to Iraq when they were supporting Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. USA's current big mouth Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld personally visited Saddam Hussein in the process. Now the Americans have swapped sides (as they have disastrously in other areas of conflict such as Afganistan). Any wonder many people are cynical and disbelieving?

A letter to The Times of London the other day by a former Army officer Simon Edwards said that among all his former officer friends and associates none of them supported a war with Iraq.

He quoted a Gulf War brigade commander Major-General Patrick Cordingley that "the knowledge that your country is behind you is as important to a serviceman as food and drink" - shades of Vietnam!

....In the same edition of The Times in the leading Letter to the Editor, Field Marshall Sir John Stanier says "It is my reluctant conclusion that until the United States shows herself to be a caring and committed participant in combating the woes of the world, her military options will only regenerate terrorism."'



This newspaper is also conducting a poll, and the result will be known in a couple of days.

There are 10 yes or no questions.

*Do you believe Australia should be sending troops to attack Iraq?
*Do you support Australian involvement without UN sanctions?
*With UN sanctions?
*Should Federal Parliament debate the issue first?
*Do you believe Iraq is a threat to world peace?
*Should more time be given to UN investigators?
*Have President Bush or PM Howard convinced you Iraq has so-called "weapons of mass destruction"?
*Should Saddam Hussein be allowed voluntary exile if he agrees?
*Is Iraq a bigger threat to world stability than North Korea?
*Is oil an issue?

The feeling I'm getting is that the number of people in Australia against the war and our involvement in it, is climbing daily as the prospect looms closer, and would be a higher percentage now than the 61% that Ard Mhacha heard of. The New York Times certainly got it wrong.

This is shaping up to be another unpopular war like Vietnam, but this time, the consequences are likely to be more dire.

Anyway, I'll be marching in a protest on Saturday, along with other members of my choir. But who knows - it might be too late by then!

Jenny

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:22 AM

But you must keep in mind that most of these folks wouldn't agree that war was the way to settle the problem with Saddam if it were proven that he supplied the terrorist with the vial of anthrax that killed thousands of people in one of our major cities. Geeze, that's a long sentence isn't it?

Long and incredibly presumptuous. DougR, I'm getting a bit concerned about you. These days you sound like you think you have the omniscience of God. You're not about to start a DougR cult or something, are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:42 AM

I hope I'm wrong about the scale of casualties. But even if it's true thta there's no will to fight onthe part of most Iraqis, it's very hard to surrender to an attacker who is hundred of miles away pressing buttons, or 70,000 feet up in the air.

But even setting that aside, I find it very hard to imagine an outcome to a war which won't strengthen the hand of the people who want a global Holy War. The US and the UK has in effect been hijacked by terrorists every bit as much as the airliners of September 11th were, and for the same purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:59 AM

I think DougR is mainstream America. If he is a cult, maybe half the US is a cult.

Everyone is against war, and innocent people dying. You don't need a poll to find that out.

To get rid of Saddam now might save lives later. How does anyone know?
I pray for a peaceful solution but I don't think Saddam cares about anyone but Saddam.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Peg
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:04 PM

In the last war in the Persian Gulf, we (USA) lost some 147 American military personnel.

85,000 Iraqis perished (most of them civilians).

These numbers are unacceptable.

I heard today that the first "campaign" of bombs in the forthcoming invasion will, in one day, equal the bombs used in the first 40 days of the Persian Gulf conflict in the 1990s. The name for this act of destruction? "Operation Shock and Awe."

I am shocked and awed, all right.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:05 PM

"To get rid of Saddam now might save lives later."

Or it might have precisely the opposite result. And nobody knows, and whatever side we come down on we might be wrong. We just have to use our best judgement. Most people around the world pretty clearly think the latter outcome is more likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:08 PM

My post, Richie, was in reference to his apparent knowlege of what is in the minds of most of the people who post to the Mudcat on all issues. That's all.

Personally, I'm all for letting people speak for themselves. If we need DougR to speak for us, we'll start the DougR cult ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 03:59 PM

If elected to be leader of a cult, I shall steadfastly refuse to serve! I based my post on the many, many posts on the Mudcat that are critical of anything the Bush administration does. You want to question it Carol, have at it. Better yet, read your fellow Mudcatter's posts.

And Richie is right. I'm just plain old Doug like I've always been.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 04:28 PM

Any terrorist who is looking for anthrax to use in the USA would do much better looking a lot closer to home. In fact he did didn't he?

And anyone looking for the makings of a nuclear weapon would be shopping around in the former Soviet Union.

This isn't about stopping terrorism, and the outcome is only to likely to promote terrorism. Leaving aside the question of whether the attack will in itself be an act of terrorism, which seems only too horribly probable.

Afghanistan involved more dead civilians than September 11, and I suspect that will be a pale shadow of what is coming up in Iraq. And that will be an enormous victory for "Bin Laden".

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,A Mad Trot who probably shouldn't be here...
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 04:28 PM

I cannot emphasize enough how much I loathe Saddam Hussein's fascistic dictatorship. It is brutal and reactionary, and it must be destroyed.

But a war driven by British and American imperialism is not the way to go about it.

America couldn't care less for the Iraqi people. This is not a war of 'liberation.' Let's not forget that America helped put, and keep, Hussein in power, and indeed sold him the WMD that he may or may not have.

The argument of 'he's a threat to our safety' is nonsense. He might be a reactionary bastard, but he is still the ruler of a nation state. He cannot act in the same way as a terrorist organisation like Al'Qaeda. Saddam IS a threat - to his own people. And an American war will NOT act in their interests. Capitalism knows no compassion.

To give a parallel - last year, India and Pakistan were engaged in a conflict that threatened to turn nuclear. Both countries openly admitted to having WMD and even said they were prepared to use them. No-one advocated an American war as the solution to that conflict.

If any nation is likely to use WMD in the near future, it's America. Bush is a madman with his finger on the button, yelling with childlike glee 'can I push it yet? Can I push it yet?'

There is no conflict between opposing the war and opposing Saddam. Indeed, those who oppose Saddam should also logically oppose the war. Will America not, having deposed the Ba'athist Regime, not install a similarly dictatorial ruler who is merely more pro-West and will give them all their oil?

I am, for my sins, a passionate Trotskyist, and the people I support to overthrow Saddam is the Iraqi working-class. You might argue that 30 years of fascistic oppression has left them incapable of such a significant act, but one only needs to turn the clock back 12 years to the Gulf War, when there was an uprising against Saddam Hussein. America promised to back this uprising, but withdrew at the last minute. The uprising was crushed and the revolutionaries slaughtered. If America was really concerned for the welfare of the Iraqi people, would it have done this?

Perhaps international financial aid is needed for such an uprising to succeed, but a war that will act only in the interests of imperialist capitalism, a war that will murder hundreds of innocent people, is certainly not the answer.

-

Shalom Rubenstein (my god...that was long...sorry guys...)

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 04:30 PM

Peg... 85,000 Iraqis perished (most of them civilians).

I thought it was closer to 400,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 04:44 PM

I'm going to keep this simple as I don't visit this forum enough to get into a feint-riposte with others who will disagree. There are valid points of view on both sides, but ultimately I have trouble with those who oppose the war.

1) Isn't Saddam Hussein a dramatically evil dictator with an unlimited budget?

2) Hasn't he demonstrably killed citizens of his own country with poison gas distributed by his own warplanes?

3) Has he not started more than one war with huge loss of life to his own people as well as those whom he invaded?

Those statements of course are simply stated and somewhat simple minded. But what's wrong with that?

I tend to follow the Thomas Friedman column in the New York Times. He had a good pro'n con on the issue which I won't copy into this space but is worth reading.

I don't think Britain and the U.S. are imperialist here. But that opens up a big can of worms over the definition of imperialism. Were we imperialist when we took over Japan for 7-8 years at the end of WWII and re-made their government? It was the right thing to do, and we're all better off for it.

I'm not a big 'W' fan. I'm full of personal misgivings. But he's the only president we've got (since the one we elected lost in the Supreme Court!)

The war will be the easy part.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 05:18 PM

1) Yes, Saddam is an evil dictator. His budget, however, is pathetically small.

2)Yes, he has killed his own civilians. However, remember that America has also used chemical and nuclear weapons on other nation's civilians, and its own armed forces.

3) Yes, he has, but Dubya has already started one war with huge loss of life for the civilians of the country he invaded. I don't think that the relatively small number of U.S. casualties makes it any better.

The problem is this: If the U.S. attacks Saddam, we send the following messages:

A) The U.S. has the right to invade any nation that possesses WMD's and has used them in the past.

B) The U.S. is above international law, as we fit into the previous category.

I think that to make such a declaration is incredibly arrogant and dangerous. It says that America can do whatever it wants, so long as it can provide a plausible lie as to motive. It will make us even more resented, both among Third World nations who fear that we will take the same stance against them, and industrial nations who will think that we intend to declare ourselves, in effect, the world's policeman, without any controls.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 06:10 PM

Where is it written that only the US should have and use WMD?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 06:22 PM

You want to question it Carol, have at it. Better yet, read your fellow Mudcatter's posts.

I have been reading them, DougR. So far, I haven't seen anything even remotely resembling this assertion of yours.

most of these folks wouldn't agree that war was the way to settle the problem with Saddam if it were proven that he supplied the terrorist with the vial of anthrax that killed thousands of people in one of our major cities.

If you can find posts from "most" of the folks here that state what you are asserting, I'll gladly capitulate.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,no way!
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 07:13 PM

Iraqis? IRAQ?! I thought we were nukin the Iroquois terrorists. Does anybody know how I can call that polling guy back? Oh, man, I can't believe this.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 07:19 PM

And is there anyone out there among those who support the war who actually believes that it isn't exactly what the people who planned September 11th hoped would happen?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 10:48 PM

Carol C: read Bobert's OBU's, McGrath's posts on the subject. Then everyone else's except mine, Teribus, Richie, Jed, and four or five others. That's about it. If you read something that proves different than what I have stated, then either you are not reading, or have some difficulty understanding what the majority on the Mudcat is writing. I can't be responsible for either.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 10:55 PM

DougR, it might be that most of us wouldn't consider that justifiable cause for war. That doesn't mean we're wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:02 PM

McGrath,

I think the people who planned the 9-11 attack got their asses kicked in Afganistan. Where are their allies the Taliban now? Where is Bin Laden?

Do you actually think the terrorists have profited? Terrorism is a cowardly act of murder- that is clear. Bush also made it clear he would go after the terrorists and those countries that habored terrorists.

9-11 didn't help Bin Laden or terrorism.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:09 PM

So, how do we neutralise Hussein's power and weapons forever without going to war? Any ideas?

I'm agin' war, but am not sure how to accomplish what I have asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:25 PM

If there was intense unified international pressure against Saddam I think he could be forced from power. If the internationl coalition demanded Saddam leave and offered him a safe haven for exile there might be a chance.

The only other way to get rid of Saddam with out a coalition war would be if the Iraqi people overthrew Saddam. That seems unlikely given Saddam's iron rule.

Another possibility is Saddam might back-down in the face of sure defeat and give up his weapons. Then Iraq could be in similar situation as Castro and Cuba, an isolated country with strict sanctions.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:25 PM

most of these folks wouldn't agree that war was the way to settle the problem with Saddam if it were proven that he supplied the terrorist with the vial of anthrax that killed thousands of people in one of our major cities.

This scenario hasn't happened. I don't recall anyone saying what they would think about war with Iraq if it did happen. Other than that some people would have suspicions that it was the US government that was responsible for such an attack. But in the event that it was proven even beyond even these people's doubts that it was Saddam who did such a thing, the question just hasn't been addressed in these threads.

Prove me wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:27 PM

Then what?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:41 PM

Walking Eagle

After Saddam is gone the coalition would try and assemble a group or party of Iraqis to assume power temporarily. This would be similar to the senario in Afganistan after the Taliban. The coalition would been responsible for stabilizing the new government for a period of time.

If Saddam remains in power with strict sanctions and close monitoring he won't be an immediate threat, but will continue his lies, deceits and eventually will become a problem again.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 12:27 AM

I don't think Saddam will become a threat again. He invaded Kuwait because he thought that the U.S. wouldn't get involved. He now knows that any aggressive action will be seen as a green light to bomb him into ash. He may be crazy, but he's not suicidal. I'd rather take the slight risk of inaction than the certain bloodbath of a war where one side is suspected of having WMD's and the other has declared their intention to use them if it feels they are necessary. If it really is necessary to eliminate Saddam, an assassination or airdrop invasion would have a much lower risk of large-scale WMD use than a land war.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Dave M Australia
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 01:00 AM

Everytime I see Cheney or George W spouting off I am reminded of Phil Ochs lines We're the cops of the world.If the usa junked all it's weapons and put the money into a fairer deal for the world's poor we would all be better off. War isn't the answer to anything ecept"What is the most stupid activity you can think of"

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 02:28 AM

The USA and Britian have all ready decided to go to war, because if they don't want a war then why are the sending troops over to the Pershin Gulf.
What I mean is that they are preapring to go to war no matter what happens along with Australia.
I they don't want a war then why send the armed forces there in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 02:32 AM

And another thinng is if they wanted to get rid of Saddam and his friends then why didn't they do it 12 years ago, and then when they would of got rid of him, then we would be talking about war, it's a bit to late now.
As I say they should of got rid of him 12 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 02:56 AM

Short answers to the points made in the two posts above:

1. Command HQ set up and troops, ships and aircraft deployed to put pressure on Saddam Hussein - make the threat of military action credible. Also having the troops there ensures that they are aclimatised and "theatre fit" should they have to be used. Being there before hand also allows you to iron any bugs out of lines of communication and supply.

2. The UN coalition raised for "Desert Shield" and "Desert Storm" were tasked with the protection of Saudi Arabia and the liberation of Kuwait and the expulsion of Iraqi Forces from Kuwait. It specifically did not cover the invasion of Iraq or deposition of the government of Iraq. Coalition forces engaged and pursued Iraqi forces into Iraq only as far as they could be confident that no counter-attack could be launched.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 03:36 AM

Peg, what is the source for your remarkable figure?
This gives 20000 military and 2300 civilian.
source

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 06:26 AM

Now yoiu don't get me accusing you, Doug of being a murderous psychopath who really likes the idea of killing Iraqi woemn and children, because it wouldn't be true. But that's more or less equivalent to what you've just said about me.

As I've repeatedly said, I detest the Saddam govermnment, and did so at the time when the Americans and their allies were backing him up and supplying him with arms and all kinds of other stuff, and shrugging their shoulders at his use of poison gas against enemy troops and Kurdish civilians.

I've also pointed out that there has never been any credible evidence of his people having anything to do with the terrorists attacks of September 11 or Nvember 12, and suggested that it would make very little sense indeed for them to be involved in those kind of operations, because there would be no conceivable advantage to them.

To imply that I feel indifferent to the idea of terrorist attacks on people anywhere is just a lie. I happen to think that a war on Iraq probably makes such things more a lot more likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 06:46 AM

And Richie - it seems to me that thinking in terms of people getting their asses kicked is to misunderstand what we are up against, and what makes them tick.

The people who planned Septemebr 11 were not the least bit worried about sacrificing their people, any more than a general is worried about expending ammunition, so long as there is plenty more available. Why should they worry about a few thousand more deaths in Afghanistan or the loss of a few training camps of dubious significance or the deaths of a few figureheads? Or real leaders for that matter.

They are surely working on a longer term plan than that. Whatever happens in Iraq, it seems pretty self evident that the level of fear and hatred of America will be exponentially greater in its wake. Every move forward America makes promises to increase this effect. Sooner or later - maybe in a couple of years, maybe in fifty years or more, America will withdraw back home. And what is fifty years?

Here's a quote from Chesterton's long poem about King Alfred, The Ballad of the White Horse. It's Alfred speaking, and as a Christian, but it gives a sense what it is like to think in those kind of terms. And when you are up against people thinking in those terms, a very different aproach is needed if you are to hope to overcome them:

"...on you is fallen the shadow
And not upon the Name;
That though we scatter and though we fly
And you hang over us like the sky
You are more tired of victory
Than we are tired of shame.

That though you hunt the Christian men
Like a hare on the hill-side
The hare has still more heart to run
Than you have heart to ride.

That though all lances split on you,
All sword be heaved in vain,
We have more lust again to lose
Than you to win again."

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 01:08 PM

I think Kevin's contention regarding how Bin Laden views any forthcoming war in Iraq is immaterial. Al-Qaeda and other like minded groups have already declared their intent - the destruction of the way of life in the United States of America and the elimination of everything it stands for. It matters not one jot, what any American administration does, your avowed enemy will still be there as implacable as ever. The way they fight, the schemes they can draw together to carry-out their attacks do not rely on numbers, quite the reverse in fact - in a way large numbers actually work against them.

As for the various Polls - apart from the Boer War and the First World War, I can't think of a war that the polls weren't markedly anti prior to commencement of hostilities (Second War War especially)

Little Hawk says that this is 1939 all over again - its not, its 1934. Saddam Hussein has already been pulled up once and has refused to honour the demand of the international community that he disarm and unilaterally declare that the regime in Iraq relinquishes the development, manufacture and use of weapons of mass destruction. If left to his own devices, he will rearm and once rearmed he will be a much more difficult proposition to deal with at some time in the future - of that we can be certain. Left to his own devices he will continue to oppress the Shi'ite and Kurdish people within Iraq. Left to his own devices he will ensure that there never can be any peaceful settlement to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Does he support terrorist organisations that operate outwith his borders - yes he does and does so very publicly (He was the only national leader to applaud the events of 11th September). Is it outwith the bounds of possibility that he will not at some time support an international terrorist group intent on striking at some target in the West - I do not believe that that possibility does not exist - it therefore should not be discounted.

The United States of America did not put Saddam Hussein in power - he did that himself - the occasion was under a plan for the Ba'athist Parties in Syria and Iraq to unite to strike at Israel. Under the terms of this amalgamation Saddam Hussein had no part to play, so he took over as leader of the Ba'athist Regime in Iraq, in what was a fairly bloody internal Ba'athist coup that is very well documented. The United States of America did not sell, or supply Saddam Hussein with WMD - what the united States of America did supply him with were cultures intent on allowing Iraq to improve and develop counter-measures against chemical, bacteriological and biological weapons - the shipment was so massive that it was transported back to Baghdad as part of the Iraqi Scientists hand luggage.

A golden opportunity was missed 12 years ago, Saddam Hussein, and his ruling Ba'athist Party, have it solely in their power to avert this war - they seem extremely reluctant to do so - because disarmed and without the threat of mass terror they know that their days are numbered. If it has to be done, and I do believe that it has to be done - then do it now, preferably with UN backing. I look forward with interest to what Dr Hans Blix and Dr Mohammed AlBaradei have to report to the UNSC on Friday.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Beccy
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 01:22 PM

Keith- My prayers go with you. Rest assured that there are a great many of us grateful to you for the sacrifice you're making. May God Bless.

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 01:26 PM

Yes, Teribus, and so do I.

Carol C: If you read the post in question more closely you will note in my example that I never claimed that it had happened. Nor did I suggest it had been discussed before. My example included a very large "if." Also, I was expressing an opinion. I think it has been accepted that we are free to have opinions on the Mudcat, right?

DougR