Should the U.S. invade Iraq?

[Renee]

I saw something in the paper last week about he had these guys who were sent to plastic sergeon (sp?). I had no idea that many, but on second thought am not surprised. Life never is as simple as it should be. Renee

[Bob]

Apparently Saddam was killed many times over during the last war, by both American and British troops

[azraelle]

Three thoughts: It is a testimony as to how emasculated the UN really is if you were to seriously consider what the world would be like right now if the Un were to suddenly, "poof", disappear. Without the US, the UN would be more feckless and stercoraceous than the League of Nations that preceded it. And more bankrupt. They have NEVER been able to fill the roll of the world's policemen, and they never will. Whether the US should fill this role is debatable--the world owes us far more than we owe them! Israel had the right idea about handling Saddam back when they bombed the sh** out of the Nuclear Reactor the French were building for him (at least one instance of bad judgement (or was it greed?) coming from the mainland of Europe...). There is always the possibility that Bush is using one of the oldest (and most successful, if Brittish history is to be believed) political tricks in existence--that of starting a war for the purpose of bolstering a failing economy. He ain't as dumb as he let's on! :rofl:

[Dr. Shoe]

I would just like to make some points which I feel encapsulate my thoughts on this subject: 1. GWB is hellbent on a wholesale invasion of Iraq with a "regime Change" which will almost certainly include access to the Iraqi oilfields for Esso, Exxon, Texaco et al. 2. It is alledged that Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction" of the kind that the US and UK have had for 50 years. 3. GWB does not like the idea of a "Tyrant" having these weapons. This coming from someone who apparently manipulated the electoral process to come to power? 4. The next ountry on the "hit list" is Iran for which the propaganda build-up has already started with a news story about a rapist being hanged for his crimes and "...three thousand bloodthirsty spectators revelling in this macabre entertainment...". This is another country that is largely blameless for the twin towers atrocity. 5. There is no need to hit Saudi Arabia despite the fact that OBL is Saudi and the Saudi royal family has made no secret of funding Al Qaida. Oh yes, Esso, Exxon and Texaco (not to mention BP, Shell and Total) already have extensive interests in that country. In conclusion, I would like to ask: What is so wrong with Iraq having these weapons? The most he would do is attack his neighbours, grab 90% of the world's oil reserves and hold the world to economic ransom. This would not work for 2 reasons, firstly his neighbours would have other ideas, and secondly the oil companies would "suddenly" come up with other energy sources so that they could continue to make profits in excess of $7billion per annum. Do not be mislead, this war is a cynical plot to boost oil company profits further at the expense of innocent Iraqis and our troops who have to die just because someone in a boardroom wants more money.

[Phoenix764]

A few thoughts:

In the past two weeks we have seen Iraq first accept unconditional examination by UN weapons inspections teams to determine if Iraq still had, or was producing weapons of mass destruction. Less than 1 week after that they said that they would NOT allow unrestricted access, and that the terms of the 1998 agreement with UN secretary general Kofi Amin would still stand which made about 12 sq. miles off limits to inspection. While the U.S. and England are arguing for a resolution with immediate military consequences if Iraq doesn't allow complete access, France, China, and Russia either for political or financial reasons want to take a more diplomatic and slow approach. These moves by Iraq are all calculated moves to stall and possible divide forces.

It has not been proven that Iraq has a connection to Osama Al Bin-laden yet. What is known is :

1: Iraq does support and trains terrorists withins it's borders.

2: Iraq has produced chemical and biological weapons in the past

3: Iraq has USED chemical and / or biological weapons in the past

4: Iraq has attacked a neighboring country for it's wealth

5: Iraq tried to produce nuclear weapons before the israeli's destroyed their reactor

6: Iraq attacked Israel ( a non-combatent) during the gulf-war with scud missiles.

Based on the above, not only can it can be determined that the leader of this country is harboring terrorists, and willing to attack his neighbors, but he is willing to use weapons of mass destruction. He is a danger to that entire area of the world, and if his missiles have a longer range than expected, say 1500 miles, than most of the mediterainian area could be in danger. I don't like the prospect of loss of life, especially civillians, but in this case Sadam, his family, and most of his staff will need to be taken out for sure.

I don't think America should be the policeman of the world. We all live in the same neighborhood. We all have different customs, and should respect each other. The problem is that when problems occur with a neighbor, we should lend a helping hand, instead of saying "I'm busy right now, go ask somebody else." England and Israel have been dealing with terrorism for years. Those need to be addressed. America's recent issues came about because some fanatics resented our helping Israel. All I can hope for is that the U.S., Britian, and a few other countries that have both the intelligence and the balls to fight will do so, and will make the terrorists hide forever. It may take us several years to get them, but we will.

[Dr. Shoe]

A few thoughts:

In the past two weeks we have seen Iraq first accept unconditional examination by UN weapons inspections teams to determine if Iraq still had, or was producing weapons of mass destruction. Less than 1 week after that they said that they would NOT allow unrestricted access, and that the terms of the 1998 agreement with UN secretary general Kofi Amin would still stand which made about 12 sq. miles off limits to inspection. While the U.S. and England are arguing for a resolution with immediate military consequences if Iraq doesn't allow complete access, France, China, and Russia either for political or financial reasons want to take a more diplomatic and slow approach. These moves by Iraq are all calculated moves to stall and possible divide forces..

This is very true and I think that the UN inspectors should go in with limited special forces insertions into areas that are denied to remove samples as proof to the UN that these areas contain or produce WOMD. Only then should a full scale war be mounted.

It has not been proven that Iraq has a connection to Osama Al Bin-laden yet. What is known is :

1: Iraq does support and trains terrorists withins it's borders..

The US supports "freedom fighters" in S. America and elsewhere. Contributing to Noraid is still not outlawed and is even tax deductable in the US.

[qoute]2: Iraq has produced chemical and biological weapons in the past.

[Bob]

The UK is not developing chemical or biological weapons, the testing at Porton Down is only to check the likely effects upon human exposure to the agents, and the effectiveness of protective equipment

[Dr. Shoe]

The UK is not developing chemical or biological weapons, the testing at Porton Down is only to check the likely effects upon human exposure to the agents, and the effectiveness of protective equipment

Really?

[Bob]

Really? Oficially

[Dr. Shoe]

Many things the government or military do are not official. Officially we don't possess FAE but if that is the case why so many burnt Iraqi corpses buried in Kuwait? Officially the government aren't supposed to tap phone lines without a court order so why do we have GCHQ?

[Yamyam]

Many things the government or military do are not official. Officially we don't possess FAE but if that is the case why so many burnt Iraqi corpses buried in Kuwait? Officially the government aren't supposed to tap phone lines without a court order so why do we have GCHQ?

Officially it intercepts communications from foreign powers.

But, according to Amnesty &so on, the UK has the most secretive and restrictive government of any alleged democracy, if I remember correctly.

[Francis]

So does Echelon, but we're digressing!

[Dr. Shoe]

Officially it intercepts communications from foreign powers.

But, according to Amnesty &so on, the UK has the most secretive and restrictive government of any alleged democracy, if I remember correctly.

That is quite correct sir!

[azraelle]

In answer to the ORIGINAL question, I think that we should fire-bomb the 12 square miles of off-limits (to the UN weapons inspectors) "presidential palaces", by surprise so that Saddam has no chance to move extra civilians there, but stay the HELL out of Iraq and let them kill each OTHER off! We ought to do something to protect the Kurds, though, from Saddam's sadistic wrath...

[texasbumpkin]

I know for a fact that all governments intercept information from other countries for their own uses.....wether it be problems with the economy, problems with the health of the leaders-so if they die we know what to expect, and so on......there is one thing that you have to remember about the area of the middle east.....they are in control of most of oil, and in todays world, he who has the oil has control where most of the items today that require energy runs on fossil fuel.....so this is not neccisarily based on the plight of the people of Iraq, but on the need for oil....Saddam had been treating his people poorly for years before he invaded Kuwait, and we took no notice, but when he took over the country that controls a lot of the oil we took a BIG look at what was going on. that is my opionion.....I welcome yours.........

[hoverfly]

What is in the Middle East for oil is only a small amount available to the world. Why take something so strategic close to home when you can take something all ready available though farther away? There is oil in Russia, Vietnam, Central America, South America and Mexico, just to name a few. But when you use up the resources close to home, you become dependent on something farther away. This means that a country no longer has the economic and political power to be a world leader. It's better to keep something close to home and not use it. I think oil is just a small problem and wither the U.S. attacks Iraq depens on wither you want another supper power to be developed or not, this is the real problem. Saudi Arabia, has been flip flopping with the U.S. since Desert Storm. The other Middle East countries are really not so friendly (or ever have been) to the West. What happens if a large number of Middle East countries unite, start punching, and developing weapons technology from China, Russia, or even India? What about all the weapons that the U.S. has sold as well to our so called Arab friends? Nobody is an angle here, it’s a matter on who is going to be king on the mountain. Those who are down bellow the king, have to decide to fight him, or work with him and be happy with the pecking order. But, there is all way somebody who wants what the other guy have, is there?

[Dr. Shoe]

I agree. The problem is in the fact that they have oil which is what we need. We have weapons technology that they want. Our need is greater than their want so therefore they call the shots. As I said before, there is oil in Afghanistan and under a Taliban government it was not going to get exploited. There is oil in Iraq but it is all government controlled. If the US and UK want those resources they will get them one way or the other. We have an uneasy kind of peace with the Saudis, they are a much greater threat to the "War On Terrorism" than Iraq ever was but because they let our companies drill for oil they are considered to be "on our side". The Bin Laden family is Saudi, and many members of the Royal Family there overtly support Al Qaida. They remind me of the thief that smiles at you whilst robbing you. Even Kuwait, after being liberated kicked us in the teeth by pressing OPEC into pushing up the price of Oil. We would be much better off dealing with the Russians and Vietmanese instead.

[Scuffy]

Post your sources. All this "speculation" are interesting. But that is what they are, "speculation". Until you post your sources. So everyone please post your sources. I'm not citing anyone particularly. I'm just saying it would be nice if people would post their sources.

[Dr. Shoe]

I think you'll find that most of the posts in this thread and any other on this board are based largely on opinion rather than hard facts. However: The Taliban teaches "simple life" and as such eschews most machinations of 21st century life, therefore a Taliban government will not allow oil drilling as this goes against their faith. It is a geological fact that there is oil under Afghanistan so it is the cynic in me that believes that the war was not really motivated by the events of 11-9-01 but used it as an excuse. Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi (Daily Mail 13-9-02), Many upper class Saudis openly support Al Qaeda (The Economist circa January 2002), Kuwait led demands to reduce oil production thus forcing the prices up (Daily Mail and others circa Jan 1991). It is a well known fact that there is oil in other parts of the world. In many cases it is difficult to extract owing to geographical, political or technological reasons. The middle east has extensive oil handling infrastructures such as pipelines and purpose built tanker ports. Contributions to Noraid is tax deductable! (Headline in Economist shortly after sept 11 when GWB was proposing a war on terrorism. The sentiment was echoed by a number of UK tabloids). Well that's where I base all my opinions. I like to think that I am intelligent enough to make up my own mind an to draw my own conclusions.

[Bob]

Any opinion I put on this forum is just that my opinion! It does not reflect the view of the MOD or the RAF (my employer) And of course, I cannot say anything with regard to intreps I have read in the execution of my duties (read into this what you may)

[hoverfly]

Post your sources.

All this "speculation" are interesting. But that is what they are, "speculation". Until you post your sources.

So everyone please post your sources.

I'm not citing anyone particularly. I'm just saying it would be nice if people would post their sources.

Speculation??? If you believe almost every thing that the media says then you are not thinking out of the box. They are the worst in speculating

First of all, read some history books. But not the ones that are used in High School. Get the uncensored stuff.

Second Here are some facts.

If you look at the history of the U.S. many times we chose to stay out of conflicts. American preferred to be Isolationists and not get into other countries conflicts, but only to be drawn in to it. WW I and WW II to name a few in the 20th century. But it also goes far back as the war of 1812 in the 19th century where were the U.S. was atacked by the British. (correct me if I am wrong, I am a little rusty) History is just not to be learned and remembered, it is also meant to be applied to be used to prevent repeats in the future. For instance if the U.S. let Saddam, Molosavic, and Bin laden alone, in retrospect we could have Mussolini, Hitler, and Heraheto(I think it's the right guy) repeats.

So what did the U.S. learned? If you have you nose buried up your ass, you are going to get spanked hard. But once in awhile you still get spanked no mater what you do. Like what happened on 9/11, but not as bad. This is why the President of the U.S. has more power in exercising foreign policies than at home. There are interests to be protected out side the U.S. and it's allies, weather it is good or bad.. I am sorry, but as a American, burying my nose up my ass is not an option in to days world.

Now as for oil? It's every where...period, that's a fact. But before it turned up every where, the Middle East was the only new source of oil decades ago. So now it's every where, it's just a small issue with the Middle East.

Now here is a little dirt about the Americans...After the war of 1812 the U.S. sailed a bunch of war ships in to Japan. Now at this time Japan was very happy being Isolated from the rest of the world. They wanted nothing to do with any thing or any one out side there home land. But all that changed with the U.S. guns bearing down on them and said, you are going to trade goods with us. Nice, uh? Like I said before, no body is an angle here.

[azraelle]

Perhaps America's falling out with the Muslim world began during the "reign" of Teddy Roosevelt. I once read a story in a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist article that went something like this: There was a Greek-American immigrant named Perdicarpos (or something like that) that was captured by some Algerian potentate named Raisuli. Teddy Roosevelt sent an American Naval gunboat into the Raisuli's home port; it fired a few shots into the city, then sent a message via Marines to the "palace" that read, simply, "You have 24 hours. Perdicarpos, alive, or Raisuli, dead!" My earlier posts on the Arab-Israeli conflicts are based on several history books I have read, some by Israeli authors, some by American non-Jewish authors. The only one I can remember at the moment is by Chaim Herzog.

[Dr. Shoe]

Now here is a little dirt about the Americans...After the war of 1812 the U.S. sailed a bunch of war ships in to Japan. Now at this time Japan was very happy being Isolated from the rest of the world. They wanted nothing to do with any thing or any one out side there home land. But all that changed with the U.S. guns bearing down on them and said, you are going to trade goods with us. Nice, uh? Like I said before, no body is an angle here.

[Scuffy]

Speculation??? If you believe almost every thing that the media says then you are not thinking out of the box. They are the worst in speculating

First of all, read some history books. But not the ones that are used in High School. Get the uncensored stuff.

I don't believe everything I read. That is exactly why I said to cite your sources. If you got your information from a history book, then state the book. If it comes from the news or a peace of journalism, then cite it.

When you cite your sources, your opinions sounds more valid. It doesn't sound like mer speculation.

Second Here are some facts.

If you look at the history of the U.S. many times we chose to stay out of conflicts. American preferred to be Isolationists and not get into other countries conflicts, but only to be drawn in to it. WW I and WW II to name a few in the 20th century. But it also goes far back as the war of 1812 in the 19th century where were the U.S. was atacked by the British. (correct me if I am wrong, I am a little rusty)

So that means that history books are your sources? Cool. Which history books?

History is just not to be learned and remembered, it is also meant to be applied to be used to prevent repeats in the future. For instance if the U.S. let Saddam, Molosavic, and Bin laden alone, in retrospect we could have Mussolini, Hitler, and Heraheto(I think it's the right guy) repeats.

So what did the U.S. learned? If you have you nose buried up your ass, you are going to get spanked hard. But once in awhile you still get spanked no mater what you do. Like what happened on 9/11, but not as bad. This is why the President of the U.S. has more power in exercising foreign policies than at home. There are interests to be protected out side the U.S. and it's allies, weather it is good or bad.. I am sorry, but as a American, burying my nose up my ass is not an option in to days world.

This part is an opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

Now as for oil? It's every where...period, that's a fact. But before it turned up every where, the Middle East was the only new source of oil decades ago. So now it's every where, it's just a small issue with the Middle East.

Ok, since you state that this is a fact, then cite your sources. How do you know there is oil everywhere? Yes I know oil can be found in many places, but that's not the point. The point is to cite your sources. Even stating something as simple as I got this information in Geology 200 class at the University Of ... is better than nothing.

[Scuffy]

I'm glad people are citing their sources. And I'm glad people are showing how they arrive at their conclusion bases on their sources.

If your sources does have a web site, also post the url to the article.

Dr. Shoe, good job citing your sources. This argument is well done. It shows how the Dr arrived at the conclusion bases the sources.

I think you'll find that most of the posts in this thread and any other on this board are based largely on opinion rather than hard facts.

However:

The Taliban teaches "simple life" and as such eschews most machinations of 21st century life, therefore a Taliban government will not allow oil drilling as this goes against their faith. It is a geological fact that there is oil under Afghanistan so it is the cynic in me that believes that the war was not really motivated by the events of 11-9-01 but used it as an excuse.

Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi (Daily Mail 13-9-02), Many upper class Saudis openly support Al Qaeda (The Economist circa January 2002), Kuwait led demands to reduce oil production thus forcing the prices up (Daily Mail and others circa Jan 1991).

It is a well known fact that there is oil in other parts of the world. In many cases it is difficult to extract owing to geographical, political or technological reasons. The middle east has extensive oil handling infrastructures such as pipelines and purpose built tanker ports.

Contributions to Noraid is tax deductable! (Headline in Economist shortly after sept 11 when GWB was proposing a war on terrorism. The sentiment was echoed by a number of UK tabloids).

Well that's where I base all my opinions. I like to think that I am intelligent enough to make up my own mind an to draw my own conclusions.

[Dr. Shoe]

Dr. Shoe, good job citing your sources. This argument is well done. It shows how the Dr arrived at the conclusion bases the sources.

Thanks!

[hoverfly]

I my self is confident that my information is accurate enough, but you are free to confirm or deny any of what I have said with facts of your own. If I were to cite all my sources I would be look at close to 20 years of collimated data for me to locate it. My father is a retired History teacher so I grew up in a environment were such information was readily available and I also read allot. It's not uncommon for me to read stuff and be able to retrieve that information for later use years down the road. But at times I can be inaccurate. Hay.. I am only human. What Dr. Shoe disclosed happens to be recent information, and may still have those articles laying around. What I wrote about happens to be allot form years of just reading covering over hundreds of years. Keeping every thing that I have read would be next to impossible. What I conceder lite reading, I don't care about keeping it for any kind of future references. If I really have to, maybe I will look it up again. So what would I say to you what are my recourses of information? Well, since it sounds like you are not into the subject of Modern History, my best answer is going to be, You can find this information at the LIBARY. What kind of History book(s) I have read? Well how about any thing that has to do with American History? Cite the sources? Again, check the LIBARY. As for my opinions? They are just opinions based on facts. Do you have any thing to say that might be diffrent to what I have said?

[Bob]

The citing of sources is allways going to fraught with difficulty And the interpretation of fact is allways going to be down to the individual With regard to myself, some of the facts I have are down to the employment I am in, and most is down to watching the news and current affairs programming (predominantly the BBC but also Sky and ITN), so mostly contempory but also historical too But allways my opinion is down to my own interpretation of contempory fact I hope this is about as clear as mud

[Dr. Shoe]

I see that the Iraqi government has sent a dossier to the UN. Bush and Blair (the famous comedy duo) say that it's a pack of lies. How can they prove that their dossier isn't?

[Bubba136]

Where is Peter Arnet when we really need him ?