so when we go to war with iraq...

[welfareloser]

do you think we'll friggin stick it out and do the job right this time?

i would have much less of a problem with going to war if i believed that the job would actually be completed. it wasn't in the gulf war. we stomped on some stuff, and it took them a few years to rebuild. so now they're more pissed than before. whoopee.

i'm no expert, but it seems to me we need to disable their ability to re-arm and keep it that way, instead of disappearing. i think the current iraqi leadership has had ample chances to show that they are not a threat and has squandered them.

opinions? comments? i'm interested to see how many people think we should actively destroy not just the weapons, but the entire existing regime... should we play a hand in getting a new government set up? should we leave a military presence behind indefinitely? for how long? how much of one? is it more important to exert control there tahn to try not to piss off other countries in the region (countries that range from fairweather friendly to indifferent to good n pissed already?)

how bad is it that we're going without a UN stamp of approval? i see this as a separate issue from whether or not war is appropriate right now. it may be that bush is jumping the gun a bit, but i don't think the current UN would EVER okay a war, no matter how dire things got. so what do y'all see as the long-term ramifications of being the rabid pitbull that broke the UN leash?

my thread, my rules: let's not make personal attacks on bush. or any other politician. there's no point. i think the guy is kinda dumb, too. i hate some of the things he's done with respect to religion, abortion, tax cuts, etc. we all know how everyone here feels about the man personally already. but he is an effective president, and he's not thinking up this war on his own, his big ol' entourage of smart dudes is doing some or most of it. so, let's stick to what is being done, why it should or should not be done, what we think should be done instead, what the long-term consequences are. personal attacks are just going to make this thread stupid. and most of all, make you look like an idiot

EDIT: and no snide little rah-rah bush is the only man who can do it right crap, either. it makes you look even dumber sez me.

[nickel]

welfareloser for president

[OC]

Originally posted by nickelback
welfareloser for president

I'd vote for her.

-OC

[coleslaw]

At the end of Desert Storm, we could have just marched right into Baghdad and forced Saddam Huessein from power. However, this was not an action approved by the UN; the only action on the agenda was to liberate Kuwait. The world basically missed its chance at "doing things right" and has wasted 12 years on a diplomatic approach that has obviously fallen apart. Since the end of Desert Storm, the weapons inspectors have been forcing Saddam to give evidence of the destruction of Iraq's weapons. However, Saddam has had one hand tied behind his back the whole time, only able to demonstrate weapons with his one free hand. Sure, he shows the inspectors a few missles here and there - yet he fails to show them the hand behind his back, which is holding a hidden stockpile of chemical weapons. If you give a regime enough time (12 years), they will be able to hide pretty much anything.

[Nija]

Originally posted by overclocked
I'd hit it.

-OC

jeez, stay on topic why don'tchya?

I say if/when we go to war, we eliminate the entire regime. There is no point in doing something half-assed. You go in because They are not following the rules, so you eliminate Them. Should we have a hand in their government? You mean like we did in Afghan*? You have to go with the culture, and their culture is not western, as probably doesn't want to be. (Not that I have much to back this up, other than personal feelings) If they don't want a Western-like government they are going to revolt against it, and give more problems. Give them people what they want after we destory their lives, and I'm sure they won't be that pissed off at us.

[Memo]

Well if you ask me the "job" WAS done in the Gulf War. Back then the US actually followed UN orders. Their job was to take Iraq out of Kuwait and that was that. They accomplished their mission. Of course, I think we should have gone and taken out Saddam. I find it funny that MANY people would agree that Saddam should have been taken out but think that we should have a UN resolution to take him out this time around.

In all truthfullness, I don't really care about Iraq. I don't believe it poses any real danger to the United States. But I hope we haven't made a fool of ourselves with this fiasco. Bush has said he'll take out Saddam and his regime and for the sake of his (and our) credibility, I hope he does. Ever since we became a super power the rest of the world has thought of us as an arrogant bully. Us going to war without a UN approval is not going to change their opinions. It will all die down soon, people love to ride the waves of political frenzy. Right now it's cooooooooooooooooool to oppose the war just like it was coooooooooooool to buy american flag bumper stickers post 9/11, just look at the Dixie Chicks trying to win over fans by talking **** over in London

[coleslaw]

Originally posted by Nija
Should we have a hand in their government? You mean like we did in Afghan*? You have to go with the culture, and their culture is not western, as probably doesn't want to be.

In the past, when the US/UN has gotten involved with situations such as this, the native people of these nations basically celebrated when the US/UN finally came in and eliminated a corrupt regime. A democratic election was held and communism was voted out by the people. The new government was basically up to the people - not forced upon them.

[Nija]

Originally posted by coleslaw


In the past, when the US/UN has gotten involved with situations such as this, the native people of these nations basically celebrated when the US/UN finally came in and eliminated a corrupt regime. A democratic election was held and communism was voted out by the people. The new government was basically up to the people - not forced upon them.

Well if that happens, good. And if it doesn't tho. What if they "elect" say one of his childern, just like they "elected" Saddam in their last election (you know, when 100% of the people voted, for Saddam).

What do we do then?

I'm all for removal Saddam, I was all for it back when he first invaded. He sent the Iraqi troops in, IMHO, he should have had some war crimes brought up on him after Desert Storm, not "We'll let you have your country back after you invaded another country, if you sign this paper, that says you won't be a bad boy." The loser of the war gets no sympathy from me.

[ironchef]

My hunch is that the intent of this war is a lot like the intent during WWII: to utterly destroy the regime there and prevent a similar (or nuttier) one from assuming power afterward. Offing Hussein alone would do little to deter future corruption.

[johnnymk]

I really thought the war would have started last week.
The hot weather and the sandstorms are going to make things difficult for the soldiers and equipment, so we have little time to act.
Regarding the U.N., I have never had an ounce of respect for it, so I really don't care whether they back us or not. But we do need bases and we do need some support from nearby nations there. After all, we are halfway around the world.
Saddam is a monster, and there are many Saddams in the world today. However, he and his fellow Arabs did play a big part in 911 and he does intend to eventually use his chemical weapons to terrorize the world, especially the U.S. So that's what makes him so big a problem.
Another thing: If we back down now after all of the maneuvering of soldiers and equipment and with all of the deadlines we have given Iraq, it is going to be a sign of weakness to Saddam and other terrorist nations. They will feel as though that they will be able to pull any kind of stunt in the future without repercussions.
As to rebuilding Iraq, I don't believe that is our responsibility.And as to planting democracy in a country which has rarely known it, I doubt that it would work for any length of time.
However, I do believe that most Iraqis want Saddam out.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by johnnymk
And as to planting democracy in a country which has rarely known it, I doubt that it would work for any length of time.
However, I do believe that most Iraqis want Saddam out.

many have forgotten that Iraq was surprisingly progressive before the big upheaval around 1979/1980. women wore blue jeans and ponytails. they drove and had jobs. the country was durned close to being democratic.

anyone over the age of forty remembers how it was. and their kids know how it can be. it could work as well it works anywhere else, if the economy stays strong and they get a little help if religious nutwads try to take over.

[faither]

Originally posted by welfareloser


many have forgotten that Iraq was surprisingly progressive before the big upheaval around 1979/1980. women wore blue jeans and ponytails. they drove and had jobs.

I guess this just goes to show what a little liberation gets you.

It's much easier to control a country when all freedoms are taken away from the citizens and people live in fear of being gassed and killed by the ruling regime. Pony-tails and fancy book-learnin' weren't helping Saddam. If he had his way, after he was done exterminating Iraqies of differing beliefs, he'd start after Jews and Christians.

If we had any balls, we'd say that's the reason we're going in and tell the UN to "F" themselves.

Is there really much of a difference between Iraq and Kosovo?

[attgig]

most of what's i wanted to say has been said.

first time around, we could have gone and gotten sadaam out. there was a lot of public support for it, but the UN said no, so we didn't.
sadaam hasn't changed. he still needs to leave. so, the US should 'finish' the job left undone. definitely a bigger threat this time around, it'll probably last longer than a month and we'll see more casualties this time around than the last. but, as long as bush doesn't waver, and we keep on going, we can get the job done.

what else happened last time? UN was supposed to monitor the weapons that sadaam was making/stockpiling, but the UN is useless. There are pretty retarded people working for the UN (co-worker used to be part of the UN peacekeeping forces...the stories he told..)

anyways. how do we keep them from doing it again?
first get rid of sadaam and his relatives....banish them to some other place...
what's probably going to happen (though everyone's gonna say yuck), set up a puppet government to replace the current one and rebuild things post-war, and within 1-2 years time, hold a real election.

[LPMiller]

I just want to say that Nutwads is now my new favorite word. Thank you.

[whitak24]

obviously, i think that if we end up going in and fighting (which appears to be a done deal), we need to completely destroy the existing regime (much like we did with the taliban) and then embark on the tedious work of nation-building.

unfortunately, nation-building is not fun, nor is it flashy. CBS won't preempt their sports coverage to show live-nationbuilding activities. but the nation-building component is far more important than the "war" component.

everyone knows we will win the war, eventually. to quote the immortal words of GHWB, "this will not be another viet nam". saddam cannot compete with our military might over the long term (and i have a hunch that he can't even compete with it for the short term).

but if we bomb the hell out of the country, destroy weapons, and depose saddam without leaving something better in its place, we will have failed and will be creating problems to deal with for generations.

we must build a sustainable democracy within iraq after the war, just like we did in japan and germany after WWII (and failed to do after WWI -- in germany....i realize japan wasn't involved in WWI). if we do so, i think it will help improve the world economy and the middle east as a whole.

challenges face us, however. first of all, i'm not sure how interested bush, et al are in nation-building. as i said above, it's hard, dirty work and it won't give your approval ratings an instant boost.

in addition, i think that the lack of support from the international community for action in iraq could pose an obstacle. if we were facing this problem as a united international community, i think there would be a lot more partners to offer support in the rebuilding process. but the U.S. has sent a pretty clear message over the last few months that we're going it alone here.

another difficulty is that no one is sure how to build iraq into a democracy. it's good that they have had past experience with freedom and i'm sure this will prove to be invaluable. nonetheless, it's always tricky to turn a long-oppressed nation with many factions which until lately have been held in check by a ruthless dictator into a viable democracy (look at the situation in the former yugoslavia).

in my opinion, the last obstacle to effective nation-building is philosophical. is the u.s. going to start pursuing a "liberal" foreign policy stance in which we use our military might and our sphere of influence to create democracies? or are we going to continue following an approach similar to a traditional "realist" model where we simply act in our self-interest throughout the world?

saddam exists in part, at least, because he was a convenient dictator for our policy interests in the 1980s. throughout the world, we have propped up many dictators and tyrants in the name of furthering u.s. interests. there's nothing wrong with that on its face (although it's fairly easy to make a moral argument against it) -- it's just an alternative foreign policy strategy. however, if we're going to suddenly start acting for the good of democracy as an ideal rather than just trying to preserve our interests around the world, it's going to require a reorientation of many policies and our way of looking at the world.

and quite frankly, i'm not sure if our current government is ready to go in that direction.