Originally posted by Raskolnikov
45,000 people starve in Iraq in just one year due to sanctions that are questionably able to keep Saddam contained. That's considerably less than most estimates of Gulf War civillian casualties. What's "right" about this is that removing Saddam now saves more lives in the long run. We're not talking about indescriminate bombing here, we're talking about precision strikes against military targets. Civillians living near by certainly will take casualties, but those who live a good distance from military targets will be mostly unaffected except in the case of very errant bombs. Most analysts expect Bagdad to be under coalition control in under three weeks, after that point civillian casualties virtually drop to zero.

Thousands more starve in African and South American countries due to leadering bodies, but we’re not going to war with them. Second, many less Iraqis died before the Gulf War so most Iraqis will point to us as the cause rather than Saddam. Although this would be false, it is what the Middle Eastern people are directly pointing to, which is any easy thing to do out of anger. Like the Germans blamed the world for it’s suffering after World War I, not it’s governing body which failed during and after the war.

Again, is it absolutely necessarily to attack Bagdad so viciously? We accomplished nothing last time, why is it going to work this time?? Also I hope the analysts are right, because history tells us that war never goes as planned. Our involvement in the Vietnam war was only supposed to last a couple of months. The last attack on Bagdad was supposed to end Saddam then and there. Who knows maybe we’ll get lucky.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Here is the critical flaw in your argument. This isn't going to be just bombing like was seen in the Gulf War and in years since. Airstrikes will coincide with the invasion (we actually have troops in Kurdish areas of Iraq now), and coalition forces will quickly move to take control of the country, essentially picking Saddam up by the scruff of his neck and throwing him out of power. He may get away, but he will no longer be in control of the country, hence he will no longer matter.

I must ask you before anything. How do you know? Unless your the president himself, you really don’t know. You’ve seen this on the news, I can tell cause the majority of your information comes it. But it is preposterous to think they we can actually get away with broadcasting what we’re going to do ahead of time and get away with it. As an example, we announced on the news we were going to bomb Bagdad. Did we succeed it getting Saddam?? No. Even as a military strike, it was a semi-success. Another thing that is quite humorous is the fact that our military thinks we’re just going to walk in and take Saddam that easily. Just as well as we have in Iraq, I’m sure Saddam is ready to leave Bagdad at any sign of trouble. If he did get away, I doubt he is just going to “give up” after we take Bagdad. He would still be a threat, just like Bin Laden is. He may even find a way to exploit it given 12 yrs to think up a plan.

We all hope that this invasion will go as smoothly as you have explained, I am hesitant to rest my head with everything resting on PRIDE. No military strike like this has ever gone as planned, and it’s very naive to think this one will. I don’t see this war as a jolly walk in the park, that’s just my opinion. You can base your facts on what Larry King tells you or what happened in ‘91, but I feel I am opening my mind to more possibilities. I am looking and seeing farther down the road.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
First off, you're blowing the Kamikaze's effectiveness WAY out of proportion, and by your portrayal of Middle Easterners Israel should be cinders by now. If I was Arab, I'd actually be offended by that remark.

Am I? How? Where’s the lion's den?? The Middle East. 13 middle-easterners (most were from the middle east) flew 4 jet planes and killed around 175000 people in a matter of a couple of hours. The ratio speaks for itself and these are the people we are at war with. At least once a week for the last 25 years or so, you have heard about people dying because of a suicidal bomber on a Israeli bus or something. I meant no disrespect to any Arabic person, I thought I clearly showed that I was talking about the terrorists. I’m sorry I didn’t write a few more sentences to indefinitely clear that up. By the way, how is Israel doing these days?? They’ve been at war for what 60+ years?? Don’t bother bringing up the treaty, cause we both know they’re still at war whether they’re government wants to acknowledge it or not. It is a miracle that they are not in cinders now, but they are not winning either.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
If Saddam wanted war, he could have started one at any point very easily. What he wants is sanctions lifted so he can go about business as usual and rebuild his weapons programs to the point where he can wave a big ugly nuclear stick at his neighbors and the world with which to take anything he wants.

Could he have?? For 12 years he has had the UN and it’s inspectors so far up his brown hole, the chances of any war attempt would have been extremely slim. Even if he succeeded, he would have the entire UN stomping down on him in a second. In this position, he isn’t a threat to a housefly. But waiting for the US to attack him first will lift off the UN sanctions and also divide the UN, which has been his biggest slap in the face for the last 12 yrs. Divide and conquer. It’s perfect from his side, cause the weapons he has not destroyed he can now use in defensive manner. After the Gulf War, it was estimated that Saddam would acquire chemical and nuclear technology within a year. It’s been 12, has he shown the destruction of any such weapons? Also, it is proven that he had secret installations, which we know have not all been found, where such science is run. So where are they??? Just take some time to actually think about it. An easy way to get the sanctions lifted is for US to go to war, why do you think he’s been so cocky towards Bush?? Arrogance or Intelligence?? I hope its arrogance, for this and even more deadly outcomes are easily played out from this situation.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Nobody/nothing is invincible. Diplomacy has to come first, but after 12 uneffective years it's time to say "enough is enough." The world/UN cannot make demands it's not willing to enforce and expect to be listened to.

I agree. The UN should act more strictly than it has in the past. Saddam may be getting away lightly by having 12 yrs to destroy all weapons, but he also has to think of his country. The middle east is a very hostile region of the world, it isn’t exactly smart to disarm yourself completely and expect to stay in power. I think he also knew that if he destroyed all his weapons he would have no leverage over the UN. We all know without any threat, he would soon be thrown out of office or invaded. Especially when he was at war with Iran in the very early 80’s. Their is still tension and Iran is also developing weapons of mass destruction (as you can see where not up their buttocks). Saddam is in a rut, a very big one, but he has complied with the UN as much as he can. They are doing their job and that job is maintaining him as a minimal threat. He may be a threat to the Middle east but not the US so I still feel this is not our game. The UN has kept Saddam unthreatening for 12 yrs, there is no need for an active war. Especially with the consequences that may follow.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
A lot of Iraqi exiles for one.

Yeah well a lot of Cuban exiles have asked for our help in the last 30 yrs. We’re not planning on invading Cuba at the moment. Why? Go back and look at the Bay of Pigs, and you’ll see why. Could it happen with Iraq?? I also don’t believe that any of these Iraqis are friendly. Remember these are the countrymen that burn our flag like it’s a holiday. Now there our friends?? Please, don’t be stupid. I would not trust a single one of them, they are more likely to be anything but our friends. I remember hearing that after we captured Iraqi attackers in The Gulf War they begged and pleaded to us that Saddam was evil so we would let them go. Well, maybe they just didn’t want to die. If they were friendly, they wouldn’t have declined to offer any information about Saddam whereabouts.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
The UN is a political organization designed to preserve peace and human rights, but is currently being used to preserve a few nations political and financial interests at the expense of the Iraqi people. That's repulsive. And the agreement at the end of the Gulf War was that if disarmament didn't happen, Saddam would be removed from power. Inspections were the means to prove this, and inspections have failed miserably.

Exactly man, that’s what it is and all it is. It’s not a united war party. And yeah it is messed up that Iraqi people are dying, and the UN can’t do as much as we would all like. I totally feel where your coming from on this, and if it wasn’t for the aftermath I can see from war. I’d be a supporter of using military action to remove Saddam. I’m not trying to defend Iraq but it deserves the right to protect itself and I doubt it will use that right wrongfully since the UN is constantly breathing down it’s neck. Iraq truly isn’t a threat in it’s current situation, but allow it to fight a war and you have now given them the right to use those weapons. I still believe the UN is doing there job by keeping Saddam under supervision.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Just like in Afghanistan?

I’m not exactly sure why you brought that up. The whole reason we went into Afghanistan is because there were terrorist training camps there, and that's the last place we encountered Bin Laden. Besides helping the Afghanistan government fight a small group of terrorist militia, there was no political reason to be there. We were also in a relatively friendly neighborhood, we don’t really have many enemies over there. Although any consequences (which I think will be minimal) that will come from this won’t be clear for years. What we did there was pretty much the same thing we did when the Russians tried to invade.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
The mistakes allowing Hitler to come to power were numerous, but most boiled down to international negligence; As bad as the Great Depression was in the US, it was worse in Germany - and not rebuilding Germany after WWI made the situation that much more desperate. Next, Hitler's re-armament of Germany flew completely in the face of all the accords and treeties ending WWI. But you'll notice that plans for Iraq aren't "knock it down, root out Saddam, then leave," they're "go in, get Saddam out, rebuild the nation, and leave it with a freely elected Democratic government." That's much more like the Marshall plan after WWII that rebuilt Germany and Japan than the end of WWI which left both nations out in the cold, albeit for different reasons.

What I notice about the plans for Iraq is that they should probably be the other way around. If the Iraqis only want Saddam out, we should leave them to re-elect a new government. It’s there country and they should be allowed to have the government they chose. Replacing it with a democratic government enforced by military action sounds like a dictatorship in disguise to me. Sounds kind of unpatriotic but it isn‘t democracy at work. Invertingly what were saying by this is, "we'll help you but you’ve got to accept our democratic party”. So all we’re doing is taking out a leader(government) that we don’t approve of and replacing it with one we do, based on our opinion. It sounds like a dictator whether you believe it is right or not, democracy says you have the freedom to choose what body you will be governed by. The Iraqi people never said they wanted a democratic government. Saddam may be right, “we are trying to enslave the Iraqi people”. It would just be a political move, something like Vietnam.

Now if you look at the other democratic nation in the middle east and look how they are treated amongst the other nations. I doubt the Iraqi people would want to be a democratic nation. In the longer run, more Iraqi people will probably die in protest or neighboring nations fighting against the new democratic government. Just like the Israelis. So by forcing democracy into Iraq, we will create even more hostility in the middle-east, then ensued by more hatred for the US.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
You's have to be crazy to beleive that the Iraqi people aren't/won't be bitter at the world if nothing isn't done about Saddam. As one Iraqi Kurd now living in New York City interviewed on NPR just this morning put it, "Without justice there can be no peace, and as long as Saddam is ruling Iraq there will be no justice."

As for the Iraqi living in New York City. It's the same stories over and over on the news, which is only one side of the story. So he is no more equipped to answer in that interview than a white guy from NYC that moved to Canada. This is why I am so open-minded on this subject cause I am not easily brainwashed by propaganda. You can clearly see that the only thing we hear in the news is how bad Saddam is and those who support action. You will never hear from a Iraqi that detests America or any statistics that show negativity in our part. It’s easy to wash out anything that the media doesn’t want the public to see. So as you can see I don’t stamp down the crap I hear on the news in my posts, so yeah I am stating opinions on the matter. I think that's just keeping an open mind and so far no one has given me a reason to think otherwise. I do wish someone would cause what I see spells out an ominous future for the world.

Looking at it for both ends, it really is a double-edged sword. There are risks on both sides whether you support military action or not. Of course, starting a war in the hornets nest called the middle east has many complications that arise other than Iraq and the US/UN. But an over-all look at world order and the possibility of another war world. On the other hand, trusting the UN as it stands does show the UN as a rather weak organization if it doesn’t act on Saddam and his regime. Which indeed leaves a not-so good impression on the rest of the world. But I think the true choice is to follow peace, especially for Americans. To me the UN is following that path regardless of how weak and unnecessary it seems. Post, Pre, or acting war is not peace. That’s the bottom line.

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 03-11-2003 at 12:38 AM]