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
Iraq (Not Israel)
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Seeing as the other Iraq thread is closed for some reason, and mainly went off on a tangent about Israel, I will attempt to ressurrect the original theme by asking what people think there is to gain by invading Iraq?
I can't see the benefits myself. I certainly don't believe that the UK should be dragged into the conflict because of Blair's wish to remain faithful to his leader Mr Bush. Popular opinion seems to be divided at the moment, and much of the media is playing on the "bad idea" angle. I have to agree. Where's the evidence that after what could potentially be a bloody and long conflict that the area would be improved? Conversly, the potential for destabilization is great and there's no telling that whoever replaced Saddam would be any better.
Thoughts?
I can't see the benefits myself. I certainly don't believe that the UK should be dragged into the conflict because of Blair's wish to remain faithful to his leader Mr Bush. Popular opinion seems to be divided at the moment, and much of the media is playing on the "bad idea" angle. I have to agree. Where's the evidence that after what could potentially be a bloody and long conflict that the area would be improved? Conversly, the potential for destabilization is great and there's no telling that whoever replaced Saddam would be any better.
Thoughts?
0
Comments
There is no potential for it to be a bloody(on our side) or long conflict. It will be over in a matter of days, possibly weeks, or at least the military aspect will be.
Youre right theres no telling that saddams replacement will be any better...but then, could he be much worse?
I dare say that the average Sun reader would support anything The Sun suggested that they support, no matter how insane.
The US is encouraging both the Kurds in the North and the Sunni (I think) Muslims in the South to take up the fight against Saddam. This is all very well whilst the IRG is sitting between them, but the Kurds and Southern Muslims don't particularly get along, and when the "regime change" occurs, there could be a civil war at the interface between the two groups. The Kurds are even likely to demand an independent nation.
There's the danger to the international economy, especially since, at 2 million BPD, Iraq is one of the world's largest producers of oil. An invasion would knock this out in the short term, and Saddam might fire some of his scuds into nearby Saudi and Kuwati oil fields, knocking out millions of BPD more. Oil at $60 a barrel anyone?
After the war, assuming (and it's a big assumption) that a stable Iraq is swiftly formed, the opening up of Iraq's oil potential to its full 5 million BPD could drive the price as low as $6 a barrel. Great news? Not quite. Such a low price would destabilise the economies of the other OPEC players in the region, even leading to some more, unplanned, unanticipated and definitely unwanted regime changes in countries such as Saudi Arabia.
I'm no military expert, but I know that when top military figures on both sides of the Atlantic are getting remarkably uneasy about an attack on Iraq, it's time to sit back and wonder if it really is the right thing to do. One anonymous US General, supposedly one involved in the recent action in Afghanistan, has even gone as far as to suggest that Bush sees an invasion of Iraq as purely an opportunity to get back at Saddam on behalf of his father.
Field Marshall Lord Bramall has said that an invasion of Iraq would "pour petrol rather than water" on the flames of the Middle East. At the moment, I'm inclined to agree.
Ouch!
Sears right to the bone
In one sense, it's a good idea, because Saddam isn't a nice man. It would be nice if he could be deposed in a less 'We are going to drop bombs on you' manner, but it doesn't seem to be possible.
On the other hand, it's also seen as the US being all unilateral again, and using various disposable (and interchangeable) reasons to justify and invasion on a country whose leader is not cooperative. (Insert oil argument here.)
And other Arab countries are going to be mightily pissed off. Maybe one of the aims is to tell the Arab countries not to dick around with the US, I don't know.
Basically it just all seems hopeless.
I read The Sun. Read some of my posts then consider what you have just posted. Nice to see that snobbery is alive and well...
What The Sun article actually said is that when it comes to war, the public always turn to support the soldiers and the Govt. There has never been a time in UK history where this hasn't happened.
But then, The Sun printed that, so it can't be true can it? :rolleyes:
As for the topic, I think we need to ask ourselves a fairly basic question. Should we act now, or wait until Saddam has developed WMD (if he hasn't already)?
Personally I'd rather that we didn't wait until Israel (or US/UK) was a mushroom field. We are forever giving people the benefit of the doubt, we did it with OBL, we did it with Hitler, we didn't believe that Saddam would invade Kuwait...we didn't believe he was building a "supergun", we didn't think he would use chemical weapons on his own people...
Please take any comments I make that are as general as my one about Sun readers with the large pinch of salt with which they are intended to be digested. It wasn't *entirely* serious.
Yes, the whole War On Terror thing is a bit worrying being as the US seem to have taken it as Carte Blanche to do anything they like to any Arab nation.
Also I heard on the news today that Bush said he would "consult congress" before engaging in war with Iraq.
Gee, that's good to know. I wonder how many things he doesn't bother consulting them about. yaay for democracy in action.
Hey, no problem. Just get pissed at being dismissed as ignorant because I read The Sun.
Of course, if it was the Daily Mail, I could understand
Not sure I understand what the problem here is.
If these nations constitute a clear threat to our way of life, why shouldn't we see them as enemies, and act accordingly?
No, though the thought is that once Bush has dealt with one place he may need to move to another on his axis of evil to keep his citizens happy.
It gives them something to treat as an enemy really.
Aren't they enemies then?
Sentries used to ask "friend or foe", are you suggesting that there is something in between?
Depends what you mean by "they". The US used to use Russia as its big bad enemy during the cold war. The cold war ended and the US needed some place to replace Russia as the enemy. It's found the arab nations. First the Taliban, now Iraq and whoever next? Do they keep moving through the nations picking on whatever suitable excuse can be plucked from the air in order to attack, with the War On Terrorism as an umbrella?
Of course by 'the thought', you actually mean baseless assumption. Weve discussed it before and the idea of an attack on north korea is ridiculous. As is any attack on Iran given the current climate.
used it, or because it actually was?
What all of them, or just those who sponsor/support terrorism?
Note Jordan isn't on their list, neither are Dubai or Oman.
Both outstanding memeber of the international community.
Neither of whom has ever done anything to the US...
Okay, TWAT is a soundbyte, but tell me how each of those nations mentioned has proved to be friendly towards the West...
The more pertinant question is what have they done to deserve being invaded. Putting aside the Taliban issue we then have to look at what has changed since the Gulf War for the US to be considering another attack on Iraq. September 11th maybe? But then where's Iraq's involvement in that? Have we moved on to pre-emptive strikes now? Does it continue in that vein until the US simple attacks who it wants on a whim? Or does some degree of logic actually apply at some point?
Is that a serious question? Should we wait until the scuds with nuclear warheads land in Tel Aviv? Should we wait until the bio weapons are released in the US?
If i were planning on kidnapping and murdering a child, would you have the police wait until id actually done the deed before coming to arrest me?
I think you would find that the ROK disagrees with you. And the number of spies, covert and non-covert military personnel, and other agents that have been captured seems to bear them out.
Nothing really, they still haven't abided by the terms of the ceasefire (note ceasefire, not end of war) and we have been dropping various forms of explosive on them ever since...
The terms of the ceasefire actually give us grounds to resume the fighting whenever we want if they aren't being complied with and one of the terms was weapons inspections.
Intelligence points [allegedly] toward Iraq continuing to develop WMD. I'd rather this was stopped before they are used, and Saddam has shown his willingness before. Sometimes the best form of defence is attack, certainly that is the case here.
Or would you rather wait until Iraq used these weapons in another WTC size attack. Perhaps dropping a VX bomb on Tel Aviv...I'm certain that whatever the US/UK does next will be tiny in comparison to an Israeli retalliation
True, but it also doesn't make their only crime trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
Remember this?
http://www.terracom.net/~vfwpost/opn-PB.html
Damn, MoK! :eek:
Y'all bin listenin' ta them danged warmongerin' Yanks! :eek:
Nice to hear what many of us have been stating for quite some time, but has been conveniently overlooked within the cries of "Imperialist Aggression"... :rolleyes:
The continual breaking of the ceasefire accord by Hussein gives the US grounds to resume at ANY moment the war against Hussein/Iraq, and pursue it to and through Bagdad, all the war to the Iranian border.
If you do not want to dance, you should not request the music...
There ya go... pissin' all over their delusions with reality! :eek:
An' ah thought ch'uz wuz 'sposed ta be a "gentleman"...
"Global conflicts"...?
How many "global conflicts" have we had in "the last 50 years"...?
Perhaps if you pull your head out, you might comprehend that the US gets involved in these little "pizzant" moments because we prefer it to getting drug into REAL global conflicts, as happened twice in the last century.
Why wait to take out the garbage until the house is uninhabitable? 'Tis a much bigger job then.
You, of course, would prefer to let a little bonfire raze all of London before you arsed yourself to put it out, correct?