If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
U.S. invasion of Iraq?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Is it necessary for the U.S. to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein? Will British or other NATO troops be involved if the U.S. does invade? Will the Arab world rally around Saddam if Iraq is invaded? I'd be curious to know what other folks think.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Saddam, is undoubtedly a threat. But I do not believe he is a serious threat to the West, he doesn't have the capability to strike us on our homelands.
However he does have the ability to attack Israel and other Middle Eastern nations that are friendly to the West. He also has the ability to cut off a sizeable amount of our oil supply, which is the lifeblood of the west. Without it, society as we know it would cease to exist unless another form of energy can be found.
As for the UK's force, it is expected to be around the region of 30,000 troops, so a fairly large deployment compared to the couple of thousand we've been deploying to trouble spots so far.
I believe however that there will be huge opposistion to British troops fighting a war that America is capable of fighting alone. 30,000 would merely be a token number compared to the 210,000 the Americans are likely to send. I think the tactic this time will be a steamroller of force. Overwhelm Saddam's army with superior numbers, and superior firepower and he will be defeated.
As for the Arab world, if they do rally to his aid 2 things might happen. 1, other Western nations will deploy troops of their own to help, most likely France, Germany and possibly Russia if we ask them nicely enough. OR, we might just think "fuck it" and use nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation or reprisal.
No, the arab world will not rally around saddam.
Yay @ short term political views :rolleyes:
Yet. But you can bet your arse that he's working on it.
Herein lies the "clear and present danger" aspect.
I don't think that will be a reason for opposition. It will be because the wooly liberals don't like war. We've seen them post here, we see them demonstrate everytime we act with force.
You can pretty much rule out nuclear weaponry, unless it is a last resort.
As for the French, you'll never get them to fight.
In the last conflict they refused to fire upon Iraqi soldiers (this was French Govt position), this is why they defended the left flank. The theory was that they would only engage then if they were fired upon first...
Ok, I can see that being true. Some-one less powerful than us has something we want, so we take it by force.
I think i remember some people that went to my school that worked by similer rules.
You're right, it isn't (although I know you didn't mean that
Its about the economic effect that the loss of oil would have on the "west"
Saddam has used his WMD and threaten the borders of other countries. Has Ariel Sharon?
Saddam took power by force, did Ariel Sharon?
I don't like what the Israelis do, but lets face it, the Palestininans aren't seeking peace, are they?
Its sad that your only argument is one taht you make up, something which isn't the goal of the US/UK. We don't want to "take it by force", we want to stop him from doing that.
Or do you think that the Iraqi regime is something to be proud of?
Er...yes it does. It means he has the support of the population. Or at least the majority.
See my thread on Israeli Apartheid.
Don't assume that I support the actions of Israel.
You have highlighted the major difference there.
Israel will use WoMD in defence, Saddam uses them in aggression...
As for Sharon being out of control, don't you believe. The US could pull the rug from underneath him in a second...
Since when do international treaties have anything to do with being a democracy? I take it you think YOU deserve a vote in Israel?
No he deserves it because he doesn't threaten his neighbours.
If anything, they threaten him.
Just what do you expect anyone to do about it Aladdin?
Israel is totally surrounded by hundreds of millions of arabs. They have been in conflict with those arabs 5 times so far and the threats are constant. They arent simply paranoid.
You say get rid of Sharon...Well thats never going to happen unless Arafat is kicked out at the same time. They are very bit as bad as one another and the struggle of their nations has become a personal fight for those two..
Get rid of Sharon and Arafat.
The reasons given i find unjustified, and the reason that I think are the REAL reasons i find immoral and self serving.
Unfortunatly the only thing that will change that is actions taken by iraq...
Saddam Hussian Has responded to the US's declared plans to remove him from power by instating an assassination attempt on George W Bush. Aparently the Pretzels are already in the post...
Neither I hate Israel, nor I think the Jews are nasty Balddog. I'm just highlighting the ever-present double standards. If the US chooses to be the world's policeman it should remove all trouble-makers; it's not good targeting some whilst sponsoring others.
US stops supporting Israel = Arab nations attack Israel which, im sure you will agree, would be the worst thing we have seen in a very long time.
Then when we get involved someone bitches. If we don't someone bitches.
Pretty much damned if you do, damned if you don't, wouldn't you say?
As for the evil Arabs, long are the days where every nation wanted the destruction of Israel. All big players (Arafat, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, even Syria and Iran) have renounced to the destruction of Israel, and the Arab League have actually put forward a peace plan in which Israel returns all the land they've stolen, which is only fair and in accordance with endless UN resolutions, in return for peace and an official recognition of Israel by all parties. But it has never been Sharon's intention to leave occupied Palestine. If anything, he's moving towards total re-occupation, which of course will result in a 10-fold increase in suicide bombers and possible armed conflicts with other countries.
Long gone are the days where every arab nation openly expressed their desire for the destruction of Israel. They cant have simply changed their minds, not after everything they have said in the past. Not after the reasoning theyve given in the past.
All the land theyve 'stolen'? This arab arab league proposal, just who does Israel return this land to? Is it going to go into a Palestinian state or is it to be returned to the arab nations it was taken from? Also, considering that some people consider every last piece of Israels land 'stolen', what is classed as stolen land by this plan?
PS, the PLO charter still contains the objective of the destruction of Israel.
I'd say you have a fairly twisted view of history.
From a historical viewpoint, let's call "recent" the last 100 years, shall we?
So, starting in 1902...
Boxer Rebellion - led and inspired by the US? Don't think so...
War with Mexico - led and inspired by the US? Arguably, maybe...
World War I - hmmmm..led and inspired by the US? LMAO...not a chance...
Various colonial conflicts in Africa and Asia - led and inspired by the US? Sorry...Germany, England and France get credit for most of them...
WWII - led and inspired by the US? Hmmmm...guess Tojo, Mussolini and Hitler didn't exist..
Korea (a war still in progress) - led and inspired by the US? Hmmmm...Remember the UN?
Israeli war of Independence - led and insprired by the US? Huh?
1954 war - led and inspired by the US? Hmmm...seems to me it was the British and French who intervened...
War in the Congo - led and inspired by the US? - uh, huh...right..
Malay Crisis - led and inspired by the US? - read some SAS history...
Czechoslovakia uprising - led and inspired by the US? - inspired, maybe...
6 Day War - led and inspired by the US? - really?
Indochina War - led and inspired by the US? - tell the French, ok?
Vietnam War - led and insprired by the US? - arguably led...inspired? Think Ho Chi Minh would disagree...
Cuban revolution - led and inspired by the US? - I'd love to hear that explanation...
Various wars across Africa, Central and South America through the 60s and 70s - led and inspired by the US?
Yom Kippur - led and inspired by the US?
The destruction of Rhodesia - led and inspired by the US?
Insurgency against South Africa - led and inspired by the US?
Lebanon - led and inspired by the US?
The Balkans - led and inspired by the US? Maybe you would have preferred to allow genocide to occur unchecked...
More conflicts across Africa in the 80s and 90s - led and inspired by the US?
The Falklands - led and inspired by the US?
The invasion of Panama - led and inspired by the US? This one I'll give you...
The insurgency against Nicaragua - led and inspired by the US? This one I'll also give you...
The border wars of Thailand - led and inspired by the US? Who are we kidding?
The Gulf War - led and inspired by the US? led, yes. Inspired? Think that belongs to Saddam...
The War against Terrorism - led and inspired by the US? Led, yes. Inspired? I suggest looking to the World Trade Center...
Also with Isreal the country was formed after the second world war due to allies guilt and sympathy in the way they were treated and they murders by the Nazi's. We gave them the land in doing this we have caused all of these problems.
Where is it, it's north of Bahrain
Oh where are Bob Hope, der Bingle, and Dorothy LaMour when you need them.
Of course the military is going. Probably a bit before the mid term elections. Reservists are being called up as we speak.
By the way, Bob Hope is one of Englands greatest gifts to the U.S.!
Shame on you, Sir!
Do you have no appreciation for the emotional trauma you cause by ruining those wetdream fantasies? :rolleyes:
I said recent conflicts, not those that happened many decades ago, and I was obviously referring to those in which both the US and other Western forces were involved. So 90% of that list is completely irrelevant to this argument. To name two valid examples:
The Gulf War = protecting oil interests. Indeed led and inspired by the US.
Yugoslavia = Also led and inspired by the US, dragging other NATO countries into it. Main reason stated was human right abuses by Milosevic, but considering how many other countries have and are committing similar atrocities unchecked, one suspects hatred of communism or geographical interest as the real reasons.
Other conflicts where Western forces had little or no involvement but the US was engaged at were Panama and Nicaragua. Military support or advice was also given to numerous groups, governments or guerillas, where it served the US interests. Most notably the supporting of Chilean right-wing dictator Pinochet in the uprising against the democratically elected left-wing Allende government. Many years of torture, rapes, abuses and killings were inflicted on the people of Chile. But hey, that's a little price to pay in exchange for having a god-fearing right-wing puppet in power instead of- shock horrow- a left-wing democratic government.
So yes, you could most certainly say that the US is the self-appointed world’s policeman. If only they could show a little more consistency…
Im sorry but I think im missing something here....I assume you are talking about the balkans after their own wars, when the UN got involved? Or are you saying that the various wars and the breakup of yugoslavia was inspired and led by the US?
So could the UN...
Why is this a bad thing? If we had lost control of the Middle Eastern oil supplies then things would be a lot different now. The UK wouldn't have that much of a problem as we can become self sufficient in oil and gas if need be. We export huge amounts of the black stuff to other countries.
However, in an oil crisis we'd keep it all and sustain ourselves on that.
The USA, although it has oil reserves are not sufficient enough to keep the USA running, especially not in a state of war. The destruction of the oil fields was something that had to be prevented at all costs.
The UN could be a lot more consistent if it weren't for the five countries with the right to veto. How many resolutions have been blocked because of this?
RE: Gulf War- It's a good thing if motivated by the wrongful invasion of one nation by another and the human right abuses perpetrated by the aggressor. Was this really the case? One is tempted to think that if there was no oil in the area Kuwait would now be Iraq's 19th province.