WAR in Iraq

SnakeEyeSS · August 6, 2002

Late last year, George "dubya" Bush said we'd be in a military conflict with Iraq within a year. They are pracitcally finalizing plans now.

Should we just move in fast and blow everything up asap, or should we drag this thing out like every combat situation the clintion adminstration got the U.S. Involved in? I think Bush is getting somewhere, Iraq has been a pain to the U.S. for too long, they threaten us too much, and support al queda(ap).

I think all we'd really need to do is wipe out their governmental structual, and they'd fall apart, considering every decision is by by Saddumb.

Its about time we finish what we started over a decade ago.

Zane · August 6, 2002

Its tough. On one side, i want to kick there butt, but on the other, i'm not sure if we really want to get into such a big mess.

its crazy!!

pacodiablo · August 6, 2002

I would love to see sddam out of power, but we are still a little war weary from dealing with afghanistan (and we are not finished with them yet). I think we need to sort out our current problems before jumping into another war. That does not mean we should let down our guard on saddam, it just means we should not take him to war right now.

MountaineerTom · August 6, 2002

Personaly, I think we should throw everything we have at them, for however long it takes to get the job done, that we should have finished in '91.

It's tough though, there are TONS of thing that have to be concidered. But that's just how I feel. :plainsmile: I spent 8 months "over there" in '90-'91 for Operation Desert Shield/Storm, and several tours again for Operation Southern Watch/Northern Watch since then. I just feel we should have finished the job back then. Maybe we wouldn't be in this situation now. ???

SnakeEyeSS · August 6, 2002

they said it'll take 60-90 days to re-position our forces to stage an invasion.

HillHound · August 6, 2002

Hussein needs to be forcefully removed from power now. If he manages to come up with an atomic weapon or serious chemo/bio weapon (and he will if he hasn't already) and exports it to a terrorist group for use on one of our cities we will wish like h#ll we'd acted when we had the chance.

The pres told us months ago this war would be a long road so don't go cold on it. There are still folks out there who want to kill us violently-keep that in mind when you start feeling weary about this situation.

I can assure you our military guys are not close to being "war weary"! They're just getting warmed up-so let them take care of the dirty work (that's what they're trained for) and we need to worry about being patriotic American citizens and supporting the military while they do the job. That's all most military personel I know ask of us in return for laying their lives on the line for us.

Elwood · August 6, 2002

Personaly, I think we should throw everything we have at them, for however long it takes to get the job done, that we should have finished in '91.

The longer we wait, the longer he has to build up forces and make plans to retalliate. The whole world knows we're gonna do it, so lets just go do it, and do it right this time.

TheScaryGuy · August 6, 2002

There are still folks out there who want to kill us violently-keep that in mind when you start feeling weary about this situation.

Ya, bout 1/3 of the world. Money + Power = People hating you.

I just feel we should have finished the job back then

My sentiments exactly. We don't want another Somalia on our hands. I think we have to go at all these countries with a military training approach. Break them down, then build them back up into much better societies that the world can benefit from. But it will take 3-6 generations to get this "hate america" programming out of their systems.

Doing the job half assed like the last bush is what got us in this situation. If you're gunna do it bush, don't bail out after you kill him!

pacodiablo · August 6, 2002

I can assure you our military guys are not close to being "war weary"!

i guess i worded that wrong, i should have said we will be war weary pretty quick with 2 wars on our hands. im talking about everybody. not just those in the military. nobody wants a war, and 2 at a time is a lot to do. i think we need to sort out our issues with afghanistan first, but at the same time keep a very close eye on saddam. we should not try to fight two wars at once unless we need to. we cannot just drop everything in afgahnistan and leave, then al quada cells could rebuild, and with our attention diverted, cause more harm to us.

TxDoc · August 6, 2002

As soon as he can, he will vaporize Jerusalem. Time is of the essence with him. Stragtegy will have to differ from Desert Storm and not be predictable. They will have to make is asap. The longer the wait, the worse it will be. We surely have learned this within the last ten months.

btw-we did finish the job as was stated to Congress:

In an address to the Congress on August 5, 1990, 3 days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, President George Bush stated that the U.S. national policy objectives in the Persian Gulf were to effect the immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait; restore Kuwait's legitimate government; ensure the security and stability of Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations; and ensure the safety of American citizens abroad.

Intersting article from 1998:

Those who advocate the elimination of Hussein say it could be done in one of three ways: air strikes, covert action or a new ground war. None of these options is a realistic basis for U.S. policy.

An air campaign to kill Hussein is clearly the most attractive approach. The United States has extraordinary intelligence capabilities and could conceivably pinpoint Hussein's whereabouts. American forces also have advanced "bunker-buster" bombs that can burrow deep into the ground and destroy fortified command centers. Yes, there is an executive order in place that prohibits the assassination of foreign leaders. But President Bill Clinton could plausivably argue that Husssein's death in a U.S. air strike had been accidental. Who would complain?

But taking out Hussein in this way is a long shot. The Iraqi leader knows the United States would like his death and has taken measures to protect himself. He moves constantly, keeping his whereabouts secret from all but a handful of confidants and rarely sleeping in the same place two nights in a row. During the gulf war, the United States pounded command centers throughout Iraq for five weeks and, according to some reports, did seek to locate and kill Hussein. No such luck. What reason is there to believe that a much shorter bombing campaign would succeed where Desert Storm failed? Not much.

In any case, the surgical assassination of Hussein might not be a complete solution. The Baathist party structure over which Hussein presides is among the more extensive totalitarian systems in the world. Killing Hussein won't eliminate that structure. Instead, an equally ruthless successor might emerge to perpetuate all the Iraqi policies that so irritate the international community.

In more elaborate fantasies entertained by some in Washington, a guerrilla insurgency or military cabal in Iraq could topple not only Hussein but also the Baathists. This, too, is extremely unlikely. Beyond the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north, both of whom have been reduced to impotence, Iraqi society does not have major pockets of dissent that can be expanded into successful challenges to Hussein's iron-fisted rule.

The United States has been down the covert-action path before in Iraq, without result. Most recently, in 1996, two dissident organizations in Iraq that received covert aid from Washington were decimated by Hussein's security forces. Even if it made sense to initiate a new and larger-scale U.S. covert operation in Iraq, such an enterprise would be unlikely to bear fruit for several years.

As for a new ground war, this option is clearly not in the cards. In the years since the gulf war, a growing chorus of critics have argued that the Bush administration erred in not pushing all the way to Baghdad during Operation Desert Storm. The most rabid in the "kill-Hussein lobby" say that now is the time to finish off the job.

Yet, a ground campaign to destroy Hussein was not an appealing option in 1991 and it is not one today. Extending the goal of Desert Storm to bring down Hussein would have resulted in an enormous loss of Iraqi life as U.S. forces obliterated all potential threats on the road to Baghdad.

bowtie_pasta · August 6, 2002

The sooner we act the better. The situation in Iraq (and the middle east in general) is not going to get any better by waiting.

I say take it to all these bastards that hate the U.S. and make them feel some terror!!!

Freakin' islamic fundamentalist scumbags!!

Kania2k1 · August 6, 2002

Here's my take.

I personally feel that most people in the middle east do not want peace. If they truely did, there would be peace in the Middle East. I believe that we should just wash our hands of everything over there and refuse to participate in anything, as well as instituting trade embargos. Most of the money in the Middle East comes from foreign countries, if we do not buy their products, they do not get our money. Simple. How will they finance their "Reign of Terror" them????? With drugs?? Are you suggesting that if a kid buys a bag of reefer from his buddies-friend's-Uncle's-roomate's-sister-in-law's-cousin, who grows the sh*t!!!??? I find it hard to believe. For those who haven't seen the comercial's for the "drug war", it involves kids saying things to the extent of "I killed a foreign dignitary" or "I helped buy plutonium for a dirty bomb" then at the end the ad says that if you buy drugs, you support terrorism. BULLSH*T! Sorry, little rant there, almost done.

Secondly, why do we have to be the Free World's police. I thank all of the men and women who have put their lives on the line and dies for me to write this online right now, I do not know if I could do that. But I digress, some countries exist very well under what we call "Totalitarian Regims" Take the "Former Soviet Union" or whatever they are calling themselves these days. Bread-lines, exorbedent prices, and an incredibly high poverty rate. This is the result of the collapse of Communisim. I am not even suggesting that Communisim is good, nor am I a "Comi", I just feel that some nations fair better under different forms of government. Then there are the governments who pursicute their people or subjects and instill harsh penalties for disorderly conduct. Obviously, these countries must be stopped at all costs, but why do we have to be the referee in all of these "Cage Matches"? Then if we do something in retaliation, we face the repercussions of some other major nation getting involved and thus WWIII ensuing, bad thing's man!!! I'm glad I'm not in "Gee Dubya's" shoes right now, talk about nuts in a vice grip! What ever they decide to do, I guess I/we have to accept it, after all, we voted these "people" (and I use this term extremely loosly) into office, and they speak for us. So give em #### boy's!

hogger999 · August 6, 2002

I'm with Tom. This should have been done the first time around. I say hit now, and hit hard!

Yes, it will be a big mess and "Dubya's" nuts are in a vice, but instead him of saying "Lets sit back and take a look at this" and maybe weasel out of having to make any real tough decisions he's wanting to nip this in the bud. I think we ALL should stand behind him. Most of all be glad Gore isn't in his shoe's. He would still be trying to close coal burning power plants.

Yes, Paco it's a lot to take care of at one time but what an oppritunity for Saddam to make his move if we're busy elsewhere. I worry about what he's doing when he DOES have our undivided attention. Anyone read the MAXIM article on his two sons?

Yes, if we do take him out someone else will take his place and he could be worse. They said the same thing years ago about Osama. I say take him out, let someone replace him, then take him out. Maybe the guy who is third in line will think before he acts.

I also believe the U.S. gets into a lot of situations that are none of our business but I guess Uncle SAM just doesn't like bullys. If you let some of these nutbars get away with some small action where will it end.

I strongly believe the U.S. has many problems at home that aren't getting enough attention, but you have to keep your eyes open as to what is going on abroad before it gets out of hand.

kaspar139 · August 6, 2002

I agree with much of what ya'll are saying, but I think I have a different opinion on some of it. Let me preface this my saying I don't have all the facts nor do I claim to.

I don't think the United States is the referee in these "cage matches". We have conditioned ourself into this role years ago during the first and mainly the second World Wars, When our allies begged and begged for us to join the fight and help them. Naturally, our support of Britain (former sovereing, old enemy, now ally) caused the rest of the warring countries to take notice of us when we got more involved, and eventually helped with WWII. Other countries called upon us to help sort out differences. It is my understanding that in the Korean War and Vietnam War, we were again asked to support the parties involved. This has just been the case. More of a Queen-capable pawn, if you will.