Intervening in Iraq

[Guest gthureson]

Detroit Free Press:

 

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush has decided to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power and has ordered the CIA, the Pentagon and other agencies to devise a combination of military, diplomatic and covert steps to achieve that goal, senior U.S. officials said Tuesday.

 

Reuters:

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites), speaking as his administration considered ways to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), said on Wednesday he reserved all his options to act but he would not disclose them at this time.

 

``I will reserve whatever options I have. I'll keep them close to my vest. Saddam Hussein needs to understand that I'm serious about defending our country,'' Bush said during a news conference with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf.

 

AP:

 

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) specifically included military action as an option, although he said Bush had not made a decision. Other administration officials said in interviews the process of formulating a policy was in an early stage.

 

Bush "is committed to regime change" and is considering the use of anti-Saddam opposition forces, "military activity and other kinds of activity," Powell said.

 

 

-------------------------------------

 

All I can figure is the administration is getting all heady with power due to the 'victory' in Afghanistan.   Reports I have read state that the US is willing to go into Iraq without any Allied support if neccessary in order to oust Hussein.

 

However....local armed resistance (which is weaker than the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan was) do not want American support.   They know it will be viewed as an invasion.

 

And this will be one huge can of worms.  Not from a military standpoint.  Any invasion of Iraq *will* be successful.   However, if you think that nobody has been trying to pinpoint Hussein location to try and snuff him in the last ten years, than you are horribly mistaken.   The guy knows that the Americans don't his life to be worth much.

 

This is also being planned while they are still devoting time and resources to trying to find Bin-Laden and mopping up in Afghanistan.  Are they going to pull out completely, and just ask the British and Canadians to take care of *American* business there while they move on to the next country they don't like?  Hell, they might have to start asking the Germans to start sending troops out of the country in large numbers for the first time since the Second World War if they US Armed Forces continue their Middle Eastern tour.

 

It may float for awhile, but the support they have received so far will crumble if they keep heaping responsibilties on their allies just so the American sphere of influence can increase.  Thats what an invasion of Iraq will be about.  They supported Bin-Laden?  Lets be honest here, if you went by that logic, damn near every country in Middle East and North Africa would have to be invaded.  I'll bet you that all of them at least gave al-Queda a wink, nod, best wishes and a bit of cash.  

 

Back to an earlier point, its not the invasion that will be a problem, its what you do afterwards.   Do you occupy it?  Thats why they didn't continue on to Baghdad during the Gulf War.  There is no credible opposition in Iraq to take power.   Anybody you install after an invasion is going to be in such a horribly weak position I can see them being toppled themselves within a year.  They are going to be viewed as an American puppet goverment, and that view will be correct.

 

Same goes for the government in Afghanistan.   The easy part is over.  Ask the Soviets about that.  They conquered Afghanistan rather quickly as well.   It was the next ten years of bullshit that wore them down.  Two will get you one that as soon as the peacekeepers pull out, there is another civil war in Afghanistan.   All of the Northen Alliance is made of warlords who want to carve out their piece of the country.   This coalition will hold only as long as there is a Western presence keeping them all honest.   Unless the UN wants to pull a Cyprus and station troops there for twenty years, its just a matter of time before all hell breaks loose again.

 

And it will the same thing in Iraq.  The US can roll in there by themselves, and take the place.  What do they do afterwards?  Install some West-leaning toady and declare him the President of the new Iraqi Republic?  How long will that last once the occupation (or peacekeeping) force leaves?

 

This time there will be no Northern Alliance to do the grunt work, either.   The rebel contingent is negligible.  The air force can still bomb the crap out of everything, but when it comes time to enter a city, American ground troops will likely have to there.  And they will get shot at.   I'm not saying losses will be heavy, but when every small-scale firefight is big news in Afghanistan, what kind of reception will actual casualties bring?

 

Enough rambling.  I suppose my point is this:  The US can score a military victory in Iraq no problem.  But the long-term political mess this will bring will outweigh any benefits of that victory.  Who do you think will try and seize power from a weak American-installed Iraqi regime?  Fundamentalists.  And if they succeed, does the US come out ahead of the whole situation?   I say they don't.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

Sigh this is the exact sort of overzealous, short-sighted strategy that I was worried was going to come after September 11th.  Now that we've "been attacked" and are "defending ourselves", we think we have the right to oust any government that's interests don't match our own.  Now I'm not saying that I support Saddam Hussein or will be mourning his death when it comes, but no country should be able to just invade any country and overthrow any regime that they don't approve of.  There needs to be a legitimate reason to start a war.  In the case of the Taliban/Al Qaeda, there was.  Osama bin Laden attacked the United States and killed thousands of innocents.  In the case of Iraq, there isn't.  Saying that they are part of an "axis of evil" just doesn't cut it.  Saying that they pose a vague, non-specific threat to US interests doesn't cut it either.  Bush has yet to give a valid reason for this proposed military action.

 

In addition to the ethical issues, there's also lots of logistical issues.  Our allies in the war in Afghanistan are, I assume, not going to welcome the US invading a sovereign country for such vague reasons.  Isolation, in the long term, is not a good thing.  We're so full of nationalistic pride right now that many of us respond to objections by allies by saying "screw them, we don't need anyone but ourselves", but that could come back to haunt us when we want their help in the future, and it's always bad to alienate everyone in a world where international trade is so important to everyone's economies.  And, as noted by the original poster, there's the whole issue of what to do after the invasion succeeds.  If we just throw someone into power, there's no guarantee that they'll maintain power, and if they do, there's no guarantee that they won't be worse than Saddam.  After so many cases of us overthrowing governments and the replacement governments being worse than we ever could have imagined, I'm surprised we still don't seem to even think of it as an issue.

 

Anyway, my question is, what's the point?  When we invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, we get absolutely nothing except more nationalistic pride, more celebrating our own greatness.  We then have to deal with even more dissension from allies who are already getting sick of our nationalism, along with Iraq in total shambles with no government to rule it.  Is it worth it?  I think not...

[Guest Tony149]

I've read and heard that they're a lot of countries that would love to see Hussein gone. Only if the U.S. is serious about taking Hussein out of power. They just won't say it in public in fear of their own extremist. I could see the U.S. saying Iraq is trying to build weapons of mass destruction (Which is probably true), along with the biological weapons they already have. As a way to get support. Many countries supporting the "war on terrorism" now, probably won't support this.

[Guest gthureson]

Yes, alot of countries wouldn't mind seeing Hussein out of power.   Namely, most of the Middle Eastern countries because they are the only ones he poses an actual threat to.

 

Saddam Hussein is not bent on world conquest.   His aims have always been to be a regional superpower.   The strategic oil reserves of the Middle East mean that it is not just a regional concern when someone wants to set up a local hegemony.  

 

What no one, not even Middle Eastern Hussein-haters want, though, is the United States rolling in on their white horse and invading on vague reasons of 'axis of evil' and 'they might have nukes and biologicals'.   Because they know what will happen.   Stability in the region will be shot all to hell because the Americans will likely not stick around to clean up their mess.

 

If occupation forces are left, you are simply inviting terrorist/guerilla attacks on them.   One of the major causes for the hatred of the US amongst certain groups is the large scale American presence in the region.   Have a large scale occupation  force in Iraq, and you are simply fanning flames and asking for trouble.   Don't leave occupation forces, and you are asking for a civil war between fundamentalists and an American toady government.  

 

I'm sure the Americans will come up with some half-assed reason to give the UN and force through a vote supporting their actions.  The UN is kept under control by the US simply because the US refuses to pay its membership fees unless the UN supports them on key issues.  What country is most in arrears for UN membership?  The United States.  They'll get Security Council support, though they will have to cut another deal with Putin to get it.  (My guess?  So far they have given ironclad promises that will not say a god damned world publicly about any action the Soviets take against rebel groups in their country, and they would likely have to add on a few monetary ones if they try and push through unilateral invasion carte blanches).

 

No, the NATO alliance won't back the United States on an invasion of Iraq.  The British have already made it known that the US in on their own.  Chretian might give vocal support to the US because Canada is tied so heavily to the US economy that any retaliation in tariffs from not giving it would cripple the economy.

 

However, just deciding you don't like a leader and unilaterally deciding to oust him on very shaky grounds tends to cause massive consternation amongst the world community.   It will only add to the view that the US goes around strong-arming itself in political world.  

 

More than anything, it adds fuel to the terrorist support it is intended to quash.  You want to drum up support in the Middle East?  You'd be able to point to Iraq and say, "See!  That is what the Americans are all about.  Controlling the region through military force, without regard to what anybody else says."

 

It will create more problems than it will solve.

[Guest hardyz1]

I agree 100%.

 

Maybe Bush just wants to finish the job his daddy didn't?  A little chip on the shoulder, perhaps?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Sigh this is the exact sort of overzealous, short-sighted strategy that I was worried was going to come after September 11th.  Now that we've "been attacked" and are "defending ourselves", we think we have the right to oust any government that's interests don't match our own.  Now I'm not saying that I support Saddam Hussein or will be mourning his death when it comes, but no country should be able to just invade any country and overthrow any regime that they don't approve of.  There needs to be a legitimate reason to start a war.

 

 

 

According to Israeli intelligence, Hussein provided a lot of money and most of the intelligence needed for the 9/11 attacks.

 

So, there is a reason to attack.

 

 

 

In the case of the Taliban/Al Qaeda, there was.  Osama bin Laden attacked the United States and killed thousands of innocents.  In the case of Iraq, there isn't.  Saying that they are part of an "axis of evil" just doesn't cut it.  Saying that they pose a vague, non-specific threat to US interests doesn't cut it either.  Bush has yet to give a valid reason for this proposed military action.

 

 

 

 

I'll go back to the belief of the Israeli intelligence community who knows that area of the world far better than we do.

 

 

 

 

In addition to the ethical issues, there's also lots of logistical issues.  Our allies in the war in Afghanistan are, I assume, not going to welcome the US invading a sovereign country for such vague reasons.  Isolation, in the long term, is not a good thing.  We're so full of nationalistic pride right now that many of us respond to objections by allies by saying "screw them, we don't need anyone but ourselves", but that could come back to haunt us when we want their help in the future, and it's always bad to alienate everyone in a world where international trade is so important to everyone's economies.

 

 

Hate to break it to you, but we DON'T need them.

 

What will they do? Boycott us? Not trade with us?

 

Geez, that'd be biting their nose off to spite their face.

 

Our European allies have an unreasonable belief in the power of diplomacy.

 

Our Middle Eastern "allies" don't even like us, so alienating them further won't hurt us.

 

Israel has said that they believe that Iraq ws a major player behind the attacks. At the very least, Iraq supports terrorist groups and, thus, must be dealt with.

 

 

And, as noted by the original poster, there's the whole issue of what to do after the invasion succeeds.  If we just throw someone into power, there's no guarantee that they'll maintain power, and if they do, there's no guarantee that they won't be worse than Saddam.

 

 

True, there's no guarantee.

 

We ALWAYS lack that certainty in a conflict.

 

However, we know that Saddam is bad. Overthrowing him would be a boon.

 

If his successor is just as bad, or worse, we'll deal with him as well.

 

 

After so many cases of us overthrowing governments and the replacement governments being worse than we ever could have imagined, I'm surprised we still don't seem to even think of it as an issue.

 

Anyway, my question is, what's the point?  When we invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, we get absolutely nothing except more nationalistic pride, more celebrating our own greatness.  We then have to deal with even more dissension from allies who are already getting sick of our nationalism, along with Iraq in total shambles with no government to rule it.  Is it worth it?  I think not...

 

 

Our allies are irrelevant. If they don't like what we're doing, fine.

 

NATO didn't exactly jump to our side when we were attacked on 9/11 (it took them 5 days to decide that the NATO mutual defense clauses applied here), so we were ready to act without them anyway.

                               -=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<Yes, alot of countries wouldn't mind seeing Hussein out of power.   Namely, most of the Middle Eastern countries because they are the only ones he poses an actual threat to.>>

 

 

Well, except for all those "evil" countries that the terrorist groups he so fervently supports decides to attack.

 

We've tried being "nice" in the face of terrorism (U.S.S Cole come to mind? The first WTC bombing?) and it only emboldened them.

 

It is now time to put the fear of God into those who will kill innocents to get their way.

 

 

<<Saddam Hussein is not bent on world conquest.   His aims have always been to be a regional superpower.   The strategic oil reserves of the Middle East mean that it is not just a regional concern when someone wants to set up a local hegemony.  

 

What no one, not even Middle Eastern Hussein-haters want, though, is the United States rolling in on their white horse and invading on vague reasons of 'axis of evil' and 'they might have nukes and biologicals'.   Because they know what will happen.   Stability in the region will be shot all to hell because the Americans will likely not stick around to clean up their mess.>>

 

 

 

What stability is there in the region?

 

 

 

<<If occupation forces are left, you are simply inviting terrorist/guerilla attacks on them.   One of the major causes for the hatred of the US amongst certain groups is the large scale American presence in the region.   Have a large scale occupation  force in Iraq, and you are simply fanning flames and asking for trouble.   Don't leave occupation forces, and you are asking for a civil war between fundamentalists and an American toady government.>>

 

 

Sounds rough.

 

 

<<I'm sure the Americans will come up with some half-assed reason to give the UN and force through a vote supporting their actions.  The UN is kept under control by the US simply because the US refuses to pay its membership fees unless the UN supports them on key issues.  What country is most in arrears for UN membership?  The United States.>>

 

 

 

The U.N supports the U.S on anything?

 

The U.N has turned into an anti-U.S joke whose usefulness is minimal, at best.

 

When we're off the Human Right Commission, then there is something seriously wrong.

 

Hmm, I seem to notice that after our guy's term as head of the Food Distribution Commision (whatever the heck it's actually called) comes to an end, the U.S will have NOBODY heading a single commission in the U.N.

 

The U.S was in arrears because we had SERIOUS issues with how the U.N was being run---and those issues have still not been resolved.

 

 

<<They'll get Security Council support, though they will have to cut another deal with Putin to get it.  (My guess?  So far they have given ironclad promises that will not say a god damned world publicly about any action the Soviets take against rebel groups in their country, and they would likely have to add on a few monetary ones if they try and push through unilateral invasion carte blanches).

 

No, the NATO alliance won't back the United States on an invasion of Iraq.  The British have already made it known that the US in on their own.  Chretian might give vocal support to the US because Canada is tied so heavily to the US economy that any retaliation in tariffs from not giving it would cripple the economy.

 

However, just deciding you don't like a leader and unilaterally deciding to oust him on very shaky grounds tends to cause massive consternation amongst the world community.   It will only add to the view that the US goes around strong-arming itself in political world.>>  

 

 

Our target is to eliminate terrorism.

 

To leave Iraq out of the equation is laughable.

 

Our European allies are too timid to attempt anything. They seem to feel that diplomacy will always work, even though of all people, Europeans SHOULD know better.

 

 

<<More than anything, it adds fuel to the terrorist support it is intended to quash.  You want to drum up support in the Middle East?  You'd be able to point to Iraq and say, "See!  That is what the Americans are all about.  Controlling the region through military force, without regard to what anybody else says.">>

 

 

And that'd be different from how things currently are in what way?

 

We'd have a bad man who financially supports terrorist groups out of the way with no damage to us.

 

 

<<It will create more problems than it will solve. >>

 

It will solve a big problem and the problems it will "cause" already exist and would exist no matter what we do.

                    -=Mike

[Guest gthureson]

             

>We've tried being "nice" in the face of terrorism (U.S.S Cole come to mind? The first WTC bombing?) and it only emboldened them.

 

It is now time to put the fear of God into those who will kill innocents to get their way.<

 

This is a simplistic view of geopolitics.  That any and all problems can and will be solved by the judicious use of military force.

 

Armed forces are a tool of public policy, but when it is the only one you use, you are inviting disaster.

 

I could argue that the reason for the hatred of America in the region is because the US is seen as a government that will kill innocents in order to get their way, but that is a completely seperate argument.

 

>What stability is there in the region?<

 

The only basket cases are Lebanon and Israel/Palestine.  Every other country has a stable government.   It may not be the 'liberal democracy' that the West thinks every one should have (and the US makes damn sure they don't get), but they are not changing leaders like other people change underwear.

 

<Sounds rough.<

 

I am not sure whether this is a flippant remark basically stating that you could care less about the aftershocks of an American ousting of Hussein, or an agreement.  Judging by the tone of the rest, I will assume flippancy.

 

And it is that kind of short-sighted policy that gets WTCs rammed with planes.

 

In pretty much every country since the Second World War where the Americans have decided to oust somebody they don't like, somebody worse ends up in power.   In Central America, they would oust socialists and end up with drug-running strongmen in power.   In the Middle East, American meddling leads to fundamentalists in charge.   And isn't the 'fundamentalist Moslems' the ones who are taking the brunt of the blame for all of this?

 

Yes, lets set up a situation where we can have another fundamentalist government in the region.

 

>The U.N supports the U.S on anything?

 

The U.N has turned into an anti-U.S joke whose usefulness is minimal, at best. <

 

The US gets UN support on what it wants UN support from.  That is, the Security Council.  Lets be honest here, the United States doesn't give a rat's ass what the UN has to say about anything outside of that.   So thats a two-way street.

 

However, the Security Council is what matters because it can give an air of legitimacy to unilateral military actions.

 

 

>Our target is to eliminate terrorism.  To leave Iraq out of the equation is laughable. Our European allies are too timid to attempt anything. They seem to feel that diplomacy will always work, even though of all people, Europeans SHOULD know better.<

 

Is that the target?  Than this approach will not work.  You do not eliminate terrorism by provoking the extremists at every opportunity.   Diplomacy is a tool, just like the armed forces.  It should not be used exclusively, no, but you have to remember that it is the same tool box as the smart bombs.

 

The Europeans should know that diplomacy will not always work, yes.  However, the Europeans also know about the headaches you get into when you try and subjugate regions of the world in Empire-building.    

 

>And that'd be different from how things currently are in what way? We'd have a bad man who financially supports terrorist groups out of the way with no damage to us.<

 

And replaced with what?   That is where the problem is.   In Afghanistan, there was a credible rebel group.  There were at least holding there own.   There is no such thing in Iraq.  If there was, there would already be a civil war in Iraq with safe havens for rebels in the north and south because those are both no-fly zones.  There is no such thing though.   Anybody installed will have no legitimacy.   And how much meddling in the region can the United States do before they start eroding the soft support they have from other Arab nations?

 

That might not matter to you, but any military or diplomatic mission must have sustainable, clear goals.  If the mission here is to remove Hussein and replace him with a stable pro-American government, it is doomed to failure.   Unwanted occupation forces will only increase hostility towards the United States, and the lack of them gives a shaky installed government very little chance of succeeding.

 

>It will solve a big problem and the problems it will "cause" already exist and would exist no matter what we do.<

 

If the current administration considered foreign policy in any other manner than carpet bombing, you could solve problems.   As I have said, military force is only one tool.   Use it when you have to, use something else when it fits better.   The current approach to the Middle East has made things worse, and has given terrorist groups the support they need to pull of startling and unprecendented acts.   How will the expansion of current policy, including the open toppling of regimes and installation curb the anti-American sentiment?  

 

The current approach is fatally short-sighted.   Are they going to topple the Saudis next?  There are alot of intelligence community rumours that there is alot of Al-Queda support within Saudi Arabia.   Iran as well?   Syria probably sent some money and equipment along.   Segments of the Egyptian regime that are pushing for a fundamentalist government likely supported them as well.  

 

To follow the Bush logic in this, every Arab government in the region will likely have to be overthrown.

 

I have no problem with the use of military force to achieve a well-thought out and sustainable goal.   The problem here lies in the fact that the goal does not seem to be thought out past the toppling of Hussein.   'A bad man' will be gone.   With nothing to replace him.  The ones they want to replace him don't want American help, because they *understand* what kind of mess that will bring internally.

 

In the end, the Bush adminstration will do what they want.   The hawks on the Joint Chiefs, most of whom were under his father as well, can achieve the goal that probably sticks in their craw.  It does nothing to get at the root cause of anti-American sentiment that causes terrorism in the first place.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The plan to overthrow Hussein could be the U.S. training and supplying anti-Hussein Iraqi's who would overthrow Hussein's gov't.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

>We've tried being "nice" in the face of terrorism (U.S.S Cole come to mind? The first WTC bombing?) and it only emboldened them.

 

It is now time to put the fear of God into those who will kill innocents to get their way.<

 

This is a simplistic view of geopolitics.  That any and all problems can and will be solved by the judicious use of military force.>>

 

No, it's a realization that diplomacy is infamously ineffective with groups who have no desire whatsoever to legitimately negotiate anything.

 

I'll, yet again, dredge up the Hitler example. Negotiation was tried repeatedly. Did negotiation work?

 

<<Armed forces are a tool of public policy, but when it is the only one you use, you are inviting disaster.>>

 

These countries deem us to be evil.

 

You can not really negotiate that away.

 

<<I could argue that the reason for the hatred of America in the region is because the US is seen as a government that will kill innocents in order to get their way, but that is a completely seperate argument.>>

 

And quite inaccurate.

 

>What stability is there in the region?<

 

<<The only basket cases are Lebanon and Israel/Palestine.  Every other country has a stable government.   It may not be the 'liberal democracy' that the West thinks every one should have (and the US makes damn sure they don't get), but they are not changing leaders like other people change underwear.>>

 

Saudi Arabia is on the verge of outright revolution and has been for years.

 

The only reason a state like Iraq is "stable" is because Saddam engages in purges of his enemies that would have made Stalin blush.

 

And Iran---Bush wasn't even referring to the elected government. He was referring to the radical sheiks whose usefulness to their country is nil.

 

<Sounds rough.<

 

<<I am not sure whether this is a flippant remark basically stating that you could care less about the aftershocks of an American ousting of Hussein, or an agreement.  Judging by the tone of the rest, I will assume flippancy.>>

 

It is flippancy.

 

Saddam has "stability" only by engaging in barbaric acts against his own people.

 

At least with "anarchy", the other side has a shot at fighting back.

 

<<And it is that kind of short-sighted policy that gets WTCs rammed with planes. >>

 

No, the WTC got rammed with planes because sub-human thugs thought it would get them into heaven by killing innocent people (including a few Muslims---something the Muslim extremists seem to have little problem with)

 

<<In pretty much every country since the Second World War where the Americans have decided to oust somebody they don't like, somebody worse ends up in power.   In Central America, they would oust socialists and end up with drug-running strongmen in power.   In the Middle East, American meddling leads to fundamentalists in charge.   And isn't the 'fundamentalist Moslems' the ones who are taking the brunt of the blame for all of this?>>

 

If they support terrorists, they DESERVE the brunt of the blame.

 

Some people blamed the Treaty of Versailles for the rise of the Nazi Party.

 

In many ways, they are correct.

 

Does that excuse the Nazis from what they did?

 

<<Yes, lets set up a situation where we can have another fundamentalist government in the region.>>

 

If they don't support terrorists, we won't care.

 

If they do, then there'll be a problem.

 

>The U.N supports the U.S on anything?

 

The U.N has turned into an anti-U.S joke whose usefulness is minimal, at best. <

 

<<The US gets UN support on what it wants UN support from.  That is, the Security Council.  Lets be honest here, the United States doesn't give a rat's ass what the UN has to say about anything outside of that.   So thats a two-way street.>>

 

The U.S doesn't care because the U.N is run by the least competent administration out there.

 

We are blamed for all of the problems in the world because of our "meddling"---but the moment a problem arises, they seem to come to us to ask to help.

 

<<However, the Security Council is what matters because it can give an air of legitimacy to unilateral military actions.>>

 

We would act without their approval. I don't even know if they approved of our actions in Afghanistan, but I can assure that if they DIDN'T approve, Bush would have acted regardless.

 

>Our target is to eliminate terrorism.  To leave Iraq out of the equation is laughable. Our European allies are too timid to attempt anything. They seem to feel that diplomacy will always work, even though of all people, Europeans SHOULD know better.<

 

<<Is that the target?  Than this approach will not work.  You do not eliminate terrorism by provoking the extremists at every opportunity.   Diplomacy is a tool, just like the armed forces.  It should not be used exclusively, no, but you have to remember that it is the same tool box as the smart bombs.>>

 

We tried to negotiate with Arafat over Israel for years. Just recently have we figured out that he DOESN'T want to negotiate.

 

We tried to work with Saddam over weapons inspections, but he refused to follow the rules.

 

We've tried diplomacy in that region in the past and its successes have hardly been legion.

 

<<The Europeans should know that diplomacy will not always work, yes.  However, the Europeans also know about the headaches you get into when you try and subjugate regions of the world in Empire-building.>>

 

The Europeans are only powered by their desire to not see a conflict. That's always they're driving force. That's why they allowed the genocide in Bosnia to keep going on until we stepped in.

 

>And that'd be different from how things currently are in what way? We'd have a bad man who financially supports terrorist groups out of the way with no damage to us.<

 

<<And replaced with what?   That is where the problem is.   In Afghanistan, there was a credible rebel group.  There were at least holding there own.   There is no such thing in Iraq.  If there was, there would already be a civil war in Iraq with safe havens for rebels in the north and south because those are both no-fly zones.  There is no such thing though.   Anybody installed will have no legitimacy.   And how much meddling in the region can the United States do before they start eroding the soft support they have from other Arab nations?>>

 

Saddam has violated the no-fly zone and has used biological weaponry against any rebel forces.

 

If the U.S supported the Kurds, like we should have, back in 1990, none of this would be necessary.

 

<<That might not matter to you, but any military or diplomatic mission must have sustainable, clear goals.  If the mission here is to remove Hussein and replace him with a stable pro-American government, it is doomed to failure.   Unwanted occupation forces will only increase hostility towards the United States, and the lack of them gives a shaky installed government very little chance of succeeding.>>

 

Saddam is not close to being universally beloved in Iraq. The rebel forces are laying low because they know what would happen to them if they spoke up.

 

And, in Afghanistan, we had no idea if there would be a really legitimate government waiting to take power if th Taliban got ousted. We had hopes, but we did not know.

 

>It will solve a big problem and the problems it will "cause" already exist and would exist no matter what we do.<

 

<If the current administration considered foreign policy in any other manner than carpet bombing, you could solve problems.   As I have said, military force is only one tool.   Use it when you have to, use something else when it fits better.   The current approach to the Middle East has made things worse, and has given terrorist groups the support they need to pull of startling and unprecendented acts.   How will the expansion of current policy, including the open toppling of regimes and installation curb the anti-American sentiment?  >>

 

Nothing will curb Anti-Americanism out there. To try and do so would be fool-hardy.

 

We have fought FOR Muslims quite a bit (Kuwait, Bosnia) and they view as being anti-Muslim.

 

We FED Afghanistan for the past few years, but WE are the bad guys here.

 

We have done all we could to make them like us and they don't.

 

Thus, we have to make darned sure that they, at the very least, fear or respect us.

 

<<The current approach is fatally short-sighted.   Are they going to topple the Saudis next?  There are alot of intelligence community rumours that there is alot of Al-Queda support within Saudi Arabia.   Iran as well?   Syria probably sent some money and equipment along.   Segments of the Egyptian regime that are pushing for a fundamentalist government likely supported them as well.   >>

 

Then they are ALL problems.

 

Should we topple the Saudis? No, but we should remove every single ounce of support we give them. Let the royal family stay in power without our assistance.

 

Iran? No. Our target is the fundamentalist segment of the Church that basically runs the country.

 

Syria? If they keep up with the support, absolutely they should be made to feel the consquences.

 

<<To follow the Bush logic in this, every Arab government in the region will likely have to be overthrown.>>

 

So be it.

 

They are committing acts of evil.

 

If they refuse to stop, then they will have to suffer the consequences of their choices.

 

<<I have no problem with the use of military force to achieve a well-thought out and sustainable goal.   The problem here lies in the fact that the goal does not seem to be thought out past the toppling of Hussein.   'A bad man' will be gone.   With nothing to replace him.>>

 

What was our plan in Afghanistan? It wasn't to put the Northern Alliance---or even the current government---in power.

 

It was to get bin Laden and topple the Taliban.

 

That was it.

 

And we achieved it.

 

If we can help them build their nation, that's a bonus for us.

 

<<The ones they want to replace him don't want American help, because they *understand* what kind of mess that will bring internally.>>

 

Then we would leave if asked.

 

We stayed in Saudi Arabia this long because we don't trust Saddam to not invade Kuwait or other states again.

 

<<In the end, the Bush adminstration will do what they want.   The hawks on the Joint Chiefs, most of whom were under his father as well, can achieve the goal that probably sticks in their craw.  It does nothing to get at the root cause of anti-American sentiment that causes terrorism in the first place.>>

 

What causes the anti-Americanism are governments that withhold money from their people (since the gov't in those states completely run the economy) to benefit the elites.

 

When the people get upset about being hungry, the gov't does the thing that demagogues have done for centuries:

 

They give them a scapegoat.

 

And that is what we are.

                   -=Mike

[Guest arejay]

You da man Mike!

[Guest Vyce]

I am SO not as good at this as Mike is.

 

So I'll just adopt a jingoistic attitude and say that I want to see Iraq blowed up real good.

 

"This is a simplistic view of geopolitics.  That any and all problems can and will be solved by the judicious use of military force."

 

I won't argue about diplomacy, but I will say this - to a lot of countries in the Middle East, our diplomacy won't work.  All they will understand is our military force....which only makes them resent us even more, which creates a vicious cycle, but regardless, if military force is what works, I say go for it.

[Guest gthureson]

Mike and I are at a stalemate in the debate, so I won't continue that any further.  Neither of us will change our minds on the matter.

 

 

However, "to a lot of countries in the Middle East, our diplomacy won't work" (Vyce), that may be because the US rarely tries actual diplomacy.  They will, however, enter into negotiations with a list of non-negotiable demands, and use military force when they can't reach an agreement.

 

Thats not diplomacy.  Most of the American Middle East problems are a mess they have created for themselves going back to the support they gave the Shah of Iran.  But hey, if no one wants to learn from their mistakes, feel free to commit them again.

[Guest the Goon]

bin Laden and Hussein have so many differences I find it hard to believe they were in it all together..

 

short "wag the dog" story short, I think they're just going after Hussein because they cant find bin Laden, and they need to capture one major figurehead to represent Bush's idea of justice. and don't think this is a specificly anti-Bush cynical thought, because Gore would be pulling the same old crap. One person, two puppets.

[Guest DrTom]

"I think they're just going after Hussein because they cant find bin Laden, and they need to capture one major figurehead to represent Bush's idea of justice."

 

No, they're going after Hussein for two reasons.

 

1. There is ample proof that he played a significant role financially in the 9/11 attacks.

 

2. It's well past time someone took him out.  He's acted aggressively toward his own people, neighboring countries, and been devloping weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade now.  Hell, he was called "The Butcher of Baghdad" back in the 80's.

 

Bush Sr didn't have the stones to remove Hussein from power, and the fact that our war effort was billed as "the liberation of Kuwait" didn't help.  Calling it "the punishment of Iraq" would have given us carte blanche to take out Hussein.  Clinton only went after him when it was convenient for his PR.  Now the burden falls on GW Bush, and I'm glad to see that he's accepted it.

[Guest jonstreich]

I think that when we go in to Iraq and take out Hussein, we also need to remove his two sons, who, from everything that I have read, are at least ten times worse than their father in their mistreatment of the people and Anti-everyone else jingoism.  Also, when Iraq falls, isn't the White House hoping that it will embolden the people of Iran to overthrow their current government?  I thought that I had heard that somewhere but I'm not sure.

[Guest TJH]

There is NO WAY the U.S would ever take any action in removing Saddam Hussein.

 

Firstly: Balance of power. If Iraq was removed as a regional power, Iran would become the dominant player in the region. At the moment there is a delicate balance, and Turkey, Saudi etc. want it to stay that way.

 

Secondly: There is no way Saudi Arabia or Turkey would let a build-up along the lines of desert storm take place, ehich would be needed if invading Iraq, mainly for the aforementioned balance of power issue.

 

Thirdly: If Iraq was conquered, and was split up into seperate states (which would have to happen if the U.S didn't want to stay involved for 5-10 years as peacekeepers) militant Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south would try and link up with similar groups in Turkey and Saudi respectively and attack those countries.

 

Fourthly: If Saddam was assasinated, one of his sons would most likely come into power, and by all accounts they are crazier than Saddam himself.

 

Basically, there are too many unknowns to try it.

Make no mistake, I hate the barstard, but I can't see it happening, without significant problems.

[Guest gthureson]

You can't see it happening.   I don't think its a good idea.

 

But the Bush adminstration, the CIA, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are already fielding plans for it.

 

Saudi Arabia and Turkey have painted themselves into the American camp.   They can complain bitterly, but if the Adminstration wants an invasion, they'll get it.   Pakistan didn't want to allow the Americans to stage out of their country either, but the US showed up with a list of things Pakistan would do to help, and told them, "This is non-negotiable.", and they had a better argument against doing it, which was basically, "You are asking us to risk a revolution."

 

If a plan that Powell, Rumsfeld and Cheney likes crosses the table, it will happen.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

bin Laden and Hussein have so many differences I find it hard to believe they were in it all together..

 

short "wag the dog" story short, I think they're just going after Hussein because they cant find bin Laden, and they need to capture one major figurehead to represent Bush's idea of justice. and don't think this is a specificly anti-Bush cynical thought, because Gore would be pulling the same old crap. One person, two puppets.

 

 

 

Think about it this way:

 

There is no way in the world bin Laden would have the resources alone to pull off the 9/11 plot. That is an EPIC undertaking involving considerable intelligence, training of pilots, etc (which is also why I don't fear another attack similar to that occurring in the near future).

 

Hussein supports Islamic terrorist organizations and loathes us (the feeling, of course, is quite mutual). Him supporting Al Qaeda hardly seems that far-fetched. Common enemies can bring different people together (remember, we sided WITH Stalin in World War II).

 

I doubt Bush is worried about the lack of success in getting bin Laden yet. He told people---and keeps on telling them---that this whole "War on Terrorism" won't be quick and, likely, won't be painless. It's an arduous and long-term undertaking that has to be done.

                        -=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

There is NO WAY the U.S would ever take any action in removing Saddam Hussein.

 

Firstly: Balance of power. If Iraq was removed as a regional power, Iran would become the dominant player in the region. At the moment there is a delicate balance, and Turkey, Saudi etc. want it to stay that way.

 

 

 

Well, the West has treated Turkey badly for years (they're still BEGGING Europe to allow them to join the EU), so if they had serious reservations, I'd definitely be fo us listening to them and consulting them.

 

However, if Saudi Arabia disapproves---well, they've proven that they are HARDLY on our side and they will just have to get over it.

 

 

Secondly: There is no way Saudi Arabia or Turkey would let a build-up along the lines of desert storm take place, ehich would be needed if invading Iraq, mainly for the aforementioned balance of power issue.

 

 

 

True---but we could use Kuwait for the buildup. I doubt Kuwait would refuse to allow us to do so, considering that they exist as a country presently due in very large part to our intervention.

 

 

Thirdly: If Iraq was conquered, and was split up into seperate states (which would have to happen if the U.S didn't want to stay involved for 5-10 years as peacekeepers) militant Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south would try and link up with similar groups in Turkey and Saudi respectively and attack those countries.

 

 

 

 

At that point, it's not our concern. If they wish to slaughter one another, have fun. It's similar to prison riots---when they break out, I say get the guards out, shut the gates, and let the cons fight to the death if they so choose to.

 

 

 

Fourthly: If Saddam was assasinated, one of his sons would most likely come into power, and by all accounts they are crazier than Saddam himself.

 

 

 

True, but at a certain point, people will rise up against completely megalomaniacal people. Do his sons have the charisma of Saddam?

 

They may be more certifiably insane than Hussein---but if they can't get their country behind them totally as Saddam has done (well, except for those groups he eradicated), they will be ineffective.

 

Basically, there are too many unknowns to try it.

Make no mistake, I hate the barstard, but I can't see it happening, without significant problems.

 

 

 

Oh, everything could cause significant problems.

 

One just has to worry about how serious the problems will be for us.

                       -=Mike

[Guest TJH]

Well, Mike, those are the kind of the short-sighted views which has gotten the U.S into trouble over the long term.

 

"If they wish to slaughter one another, have fun."

If Saudi or Turkey did end up going into civil war/revolution, that would be disastorous for the U.S.

The oil supply would dry up, and if Islamic fundamentalists got into power, would not come back for years, causing the price of oil to soar, and hurt the U.S economy, which is basically all the U.S is concerned about, and has ever been concerned about.

 

Using Kuwait for the build-up is possible, but creates huge logistical problems. The country is tiny, and would not have the logistics and land able to support the invasion force necessary.

 

"people will rise up against completely megalomaniacal people."

Not necessarily. You just have to look at the amount of dictatorships in the 20th century and even now.

Saddam has the most ruthless secret police in the country, and is willing to go to any lengths to hold power, even using chemical weapons. Even the Iraqi opposition groups hate the U.S, with the exception of the Iraqi naional congress, but they are irrelevant inside Iraq.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Well, Mike, those are the kind of the short-sighted views which has gotten the U.S into trouble over the long term.

 

"If they wish to slaughter one another, have fun."

If Saudi or Turkey did end up going into civil war/revolution, that would be disastorous for the U.S.

The oil supply would dry up, and if Islamic fundamentalists got into power, would not come back for years, causing the price of oil to soar, and hurt the U.S economy, which is basically all the U.S is concerned about, and has ever been concerned about.

 

 

 

Let's be honest here---there is no way anybody in power in the Middle East would refuse to sell us oil.

 

They need money and the ONLY thing they have to sell is that. To not sell to us woul hurt them more than it would hurt us, as we can get oil from other sources.

 

Heck, if we lifted our embargo today, do you think Hussein would not sell us oil?

 

And, as the "crisis" of the '70's showed, we could just buy the oil from other sources, including buying the same Middle Eastern oil that is sold to other countries.

 

 

Using Kuwait for the build-up is possible, but creates huge logistical problems. The country is tiny, and would not have the logistics and land able to support the invasion force necessary.

 

 

 

 

Kuwait is a tiny country, but we'd probably pick up the price tag and help them deal with any massive build-up (if one was ever needed) based out of their country.

 

Plus, if worse came to worse, we'd also have Israel to assist us in any military endeavor. Israel is the most powerful military in the Middle East as is.

 

 

 

"people will rise up against completely megalomaniacal people."

Not necessarily. You just have to look at the amount of dictatorships in the 20th century and even now.

Saddam has the most ruthless secret police in the country, and is willing to go to any lengths to hold power, even using chemical weapons. Even the Iraqi opposition groups hate the U.S, with the exception of the Iraqi naional congress, but they are irrelevant inside Iraq.

 

 

 

 

You could also look at Italy, where the people tired of Mussolini and hanged him and his mistress outside of a gas station.

 

You can look at the fall of the Soviet Union and how much power the citizens of the Communist bloc countries had to do with it.

 

There is never a guarantee that the population will rise up---but there is a chance they will.

 

Heck, Hitler would have been ousted from office if the West EVER stood up to him before about 1938.

                       -=Mike

[Guest TJH]

Whilst it is possible to obtain oil from other sources, the price of oil would rise meteorically. In the 1970's it rose 1250%, and basically crippled the world economy.

But on the other hand, the world's biggest supplier of oil (Russia) is now a player in the market, so perhaps you have a valid point.

 

The U.S has never had any significant military forces in Israel, as it would cause huge anger throughout the middle east, and would obviously be sitting targets for suicide bombers.

Don't forget that Israel doesn't even have a border with Iraq, so for all intents and purposes U.S soldiers might as well be in Japan.

 

As for the Mussolini example, this is pretty poor example, as his country had been involved in 2 disastrous wars (Abyssinia and World War 2) which were never supported by his people.

And he was shot, not hanged.

Saddam's wars have always been popular, as Iran, Iraq and Kuwait have hated each other forever.

I don't particularly want to get involved in a debate about 1930's Germany, but you aren't correct there either.

 

It is quite easy to look at this issue subjectively, as I used to do, and support invading Iraq, but if you look at it objectively, it isn't nearly as clear cut.

 

"America's challenge is to transfer its power into moral consensus, promoting its values not by imposition, but by their willing acceptance in a that, for all its seeming resistance, desperately needs enlightened leadership"

Henry Kissinger

[Guest gthureson]

Heck, Hitler would have been ousted from office if the West EVER stood up to him before about 1938.

                       -=Mike

I will have to take issue with this statement.

 

It wasn't such a simple political matter of 'standing up to Hitler', or appeasement.   There has been more than a little revisionism in the last fifty years to gloss over the fact that Great Britain, France and the United States either actively supported or gave a wink and a nod to the Fascists in coming to power in Germany, Spain and Italy.

 

The two great political movements sweeping Europe between the wars were Communism and Fascism.    The West knew they didn't like Communism, and they didn't want Communism anywhere outside of the Soviet Union.   Hell, they didn't want it in the Soviet Union either, but the support of the Whites didn't make enough of a difference to keep it from happening.

 

Politics between the wars in Germany was coalition governments designed to keep the Communists out of any position of power, same as coalitions formed in France.   There was a very sizable (usually around 30%-35% of the popular vote) support for them, and in a multi-party system, that makes them a player.

 

The West supported the National Socialists because one of their main platforms was they would destory the Communists in Germany.  They had a common enemy, and alot of powerful folk didn't have a whole lot of ideological differences with Fascism in theory.  And Hitler did what he said he would do.  He destroyed the Communists in Germany.

 

Yes, there were some (namely Churchill) who warned against the inherent dangers of an extremely nationalist and militant movement, but they made their choice.  Fascism over Communism.  

 

To topple the Nazis from power in 1934 or 1935 (which would have been extremely easy, they were more or less a paper tiger probing the West to see if they had any bite) would have removed a major stumbling block for a Communist rise to power.

 

Would it have prevented war in Europe?  Hard to say.  The Soviets had designs on Poland obviously.  The Molotov-Ribentrop showed that they did.   If the sanctity of Polish independence is used as a catalyst for England declaring war on Germany, that likely still would have happened.  The difference would have been that Germany would not have been fighting a two front war.  Likely, they would have been Communist allies with the Soviets.

 

War in the Pacific still would have happened.  Imperial Japan needed the British and French holdings in order to expand their industrial base with resources that the Japanese islands simply did not have.

 

The course of the war would have been radically different.   The fact that the majority of German resources were on the Eastern Front fighting the Russians made the Normandy landing possible.  

 

In this scenario, I could isolationist America saying to hell with Europe, and simply fighting the Pacific War.

 

This, however, is a completely topic.   Sorry for the tangent.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Quote (TheMikeSC @ Feb. 21 2002,11:50)

Heck, Hitler would have been ousted from office if the West EVER stood up to him before about 1938.

                      -=Mike

 

<<I will have to take issue with this statement.

 

It wasn't such a simple political matter of 'standing up to Hitler', or appeasement.   There has been more than a little revisionism in the last fifty years to gloss over the fact that Great Britain, France and the United States either actively supported or gave a wink and a nod to the Fascists in coming to power in Germany, Spain and Italy.>>

 

I won't deny that none of the powers minded Hitler coming to power instead of the Communists.

 

<<The two great political movements sweeping Europe between the wars were Communism and Fascism.    The West knew they didn't like Communism, and they didn't want Communism anywhere outside of the Soviet Union.   Hell, they didn't want it in the Soviet Union either, but the support of the Whites didn't make enough of a difference to keep it from happening.

 

Politics between the wars in Germany was coalition governments designed to keep the Communists out of any position of power, same as coalitions formed in France.   There was a very sizable (usually around 30%-35% of the popular vote) support for them, and in a multi-party system, that makes them a player.>>

 

Actually, politics degenerated into government by fiat around 1929-1930. The Reichstag was dominated by the Communists and Nazis, so any agreements by the body were impossible.

 

<<The West supported the National Socialists because one of their main platforms was they would destory the Communists in Germany.  They had a common enemy, and alot of powerful folk didn't have a whole lot of ideological differences with Fascism in theory.  And Hitler did what he said he would do.  He destroyed the Communists in Germany.

 

Yes, there were some (namely Churchill) who warned against the inherent dangers of an extremely nationalist and militant movement, but they made their choice.  Fascism over Communism.

 

To topple the Nazis from power in 1934 or 1935 (which would have been extremely easy, they were more or less a paper tiger probing the West to see if they had any bite) would have removed a major stumbling block for a Communist rise to power.>>

 

Yes, but by that time, Hitler was busily violating treaty after treaty---yet the West, in a desire to avoid conflict, caved in to him time and time again.

 

<<Would it have prevented war in Europe?  Hard to say.  The Soviets had designs on Poland obviously.  The Molotov-Ribentrop showed that they did.   If the sanctity of Polish independence is used as a catalyst for England declaring war on Germany, that likely still would have happened.  The difference would have been that Germany would not have been fighting a two front war.  Likely, they would have been Communist allies with the Soviets.>>

 

That's highly unlikely. The military nationalists would have suppressed any attempt at a Communist uprising. They had done so, quite effectively, in 1920, a time when the German government itself was incapable of doing so.

 

<<War in the Pacific still would have happened.  Imperial Japan needed the British and French holdings in order to expand their industrial base with resources that the Japanese islands simply did not have.

 

The course of the war would have been radically different.   The fact that the majority of German resources were on the Eastern Front fighting the Russians made the Normandy landing possible.>>

 

But, why was a two-front war necessary?

 

Because Hitler attacked an ally. We have no idea if the Soviets would have eventually turned on Adolf, but Germany violated a treaty and attacked them.

 

Had Hitler not made that idiotic decision, God knows what would have happened.  

 

<<In this scenario, I could isolationist America saying to hell with Europe, and simply fighting the Pacific War.>>

 

No, because in the end, we did like Britain and FDR wanted us to help them.

                           -=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Whilst it is possible to obtain oil from other sources, the price of oil would rise meteorically. In the 1970's it rose 1250%, and basically crippled the world economy.>>

 

But how much of that price hike was due to a shortage of supply and how much of that was due to oil companies just jacking up prices because they had a convenient excuse?

 

However, this does express the urgent need for the U.S to drill in the ANWR to prevent groups like OPEC from potentially holding our economy hostage.

 

<<But on the other hand, the world's biggest supplier of oil (Russia) is now a player in the market, so perhaps you have a valid point.

 

The U.S has never had any significant military forces in Israel, as it would cause huge anger throughout the middle east, and would obviously be sitting targets for suicide bombers.>>

 

Well, the U.S already has huge anger against it in the Middle East, so that wouldn't change. :-)

 

As for suicide bombers, yes, we would have that problem. So, we side with Israel in the extermination of said problem. Attack the Palestinians and various terrorist groups until they stop or cease to exist.

 

<<Don't forget that Israel doesn't even have a border with Iraq, so for all intents and purposes U.S soldiers might as well be in Japan.>>

 

True, it doesn't---but it does provide a nie place to launch air strikes.

 

<<As for the Mussolini example, this is pretty poor example, as his country had been involved in 2 disastrous wars (Abyssinia and World War 2) which were never supported by his people.

And he was shot, not hanged. >>

 

 

You're right on that one. My mistake.

 

<<Saddam's wars have always been popular, as Iran, Iraq and Kuwait have hated each other forever.

I don't particularly want to get involved in a debate about 1930's Germany, but you aren't correct there either.>>

 

We have no idea if Saddam's wars have been popular. Our intelligence in Iraq is really bad.

 

And what is inaccurate inthe German example?

 

<<It is quite easy to look at this issue subjectively, as I used to do, and support invading Iraq, but if you look at it objectively, it isn't nearly as clear cut.>>

 

Nobody's saying it'll be easy.

Nobody's saying problems won't exist.

 

What I'm saying is that the potential payoff is worth the risk.

                 -=Mike

[Guest TJH]

But how much of that price hike was due to a shortage of supply and how much of that was due to oil companies just jacking up prices because they had a convenient excuse?

 

Mike, that point is basically irrelevant. The bottom line is that prices rose, and it didn't matter what caused it.

But I am beggining to agree that it wouldn't really matter regardless.

 

Well, the U.S already has huge anger against it in the Middle East, so that wouldn't change.

 

But such an event could be the catalyst for Islamic extremists to topple democratic governments.

Remember how in the Gulf War the Coalition was desperate to keep the Israelis out of it? That's why.

 

We have no idea if Saddam's wars have been popular. Our intelligence in Iraq is really bad.

 

Our intelligence is piss poor, but it is a generally accepted fact Saddam is very popular.

The Sunni/Shiite conflict is kinda similar to the Catholic/Protestant thing in Northern Ireland, so Saddam would be as popular as an IRA leader, i.e very popular.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

But how much of that price hike was due to a shortage of supply and how much of that was due to oil companies just jacking up prices because they had a convenient excuse?

 

Mike, that point is basically irrelevant. The bottom line is that prices rose, and it didn't matter what caused it.>>

 

It's absolutely relevant.

 

If the oil companies gouged prices, that can be dealt with by our government.

 

By most accounts, the supply didn't drop much at all, so the oil companies DID gouge---let's not forget, some gas stations began jacking up prices immediately after 9/11.

 

<<But I am beggining to agree that it wouldn't really matter regardless.

 

Well, the U.S already has huge anger against it in the Middle East, so that wouldn't change.

 

But such an event could be the catalyst for Islamic extremists to topple democratic governments.>>

 

What democratic governments are there in the Middle East? Israel is about it---and I doubt they'd be furious over us attacking Iraq.

 

<<Remember how in the Gulf War the Coalition was desperate to keep the Israelis out of it? That's why.>>

 

No, they wanted Israel out because if they joined, the Arab countries would pull out and refuse to help us.

 

Since a lot of them won't help us now anyways, why worry?

 

<<We have no idea if Saddam's wars have been popular. Our intelligence in Iraq is really bad.

 

Our intelligence is piss poor, but it is a generally accepted fact Saddam is very popular.>>

 

Since we know nothing, what is "generally accepted", honestly, is irrelevant. It's "generally accepted" that there is no life in the Universe.

 

Can anybody, logically, imagine that in the entire span of the Universe, WE are the ONLY life forms?

 

<<The Sunni/Shiite conflict is kinda similar to the Catholic/Protestant thing in Northern Ireland, so Saddam would be as popular as an IRA leader, i.e very popular. >>

 

And, just like in Ireland, there would be a group capable of replacing him should he be toppled.

                     -=Mike