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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
If I arrested you based on the assumption that you were planning to kidnap and murder a child the case would be thrown out of court and you would be given a huge pile of cash in compensation.
What is needed in both cases is evidence, and I would prefer that there is some basis in fact before the US send in the fleet, to be honest.
There is tons of evidence that proves that Saddam has been trying to procure and build nuclear weapons for years. We know that full well.
What evidence will be enough?
But I don't think that will make a difference. I think the US gov't has made up it's mind to do this no matter what the rest of the world thinks.
Preparations are already being made and US troops are allegedly practicing for the invasion in the Nevada and California desert.
I think this is going to happen no matter what.
For some people a mushroom cloud :rolleyes:
Even then, there are those who would object to an attack of the "poor defenceless" people...
Saddam has now said in an interview with a Labour MP that he will let UN arms inspectors resume their investigations freely. If he manages to get the inspectors back in Iraq before the U.S. attacks it is going to be extremely awkward for the US to invade. It'll be interesting to see what their reaction will be. Perhaps, if anything, it might make them attack as early as next month.
Anyone who thinks that the US won't turn its attention to another of the 'axis of evil' (which incidentally includes one of its allies in the war against terror), must be living in some kind of alternate reality.
So far Bush is on his third reason to attack Iraq. First it was due to al Qaeda involvement. When this was proved to be groundless, he decided to plow the old weapons furrow. After the cleverly timed offer from Saddam. Dubya finally relented and revealed with candid honesty 'We don't care, we still want to attack him'.
You can already see a polarising of opinion in the middle east, the countries don't like Saddam Hussein but they are more fearful of the US dictating policy and government and of being told what to do. Hussein of Jordan and the Saudis have already fired off warning salvos.
The same goes for the people in the country. They don't like Saddam, but they like the US invading even less and thanks to the US policy of long range warfare, and not putting troops on the front line. The public opinion would once again swing towards Saddam.
The US doesn't believe that Iraq has the capability of getting any of its serious weapons anywhere near the US. It is primarily interested in gaining another 'western friendly' govt in the mid east to help its own interests. It is also keen to correct the latest blowback mistake created by the CIA. Expect the same thing to happen in Pakistan within the next 10 years as well.
Personally I believe that should the US invade, and ultimately succeed then there will be a huge power vaccum, remember that Bush is not at all interested in nation building. Look at Afghanistan.
This in turn will create a struggle in the Middle East, with Iran invading Iraq, the Saudi princes overthrown and Israel retaliating before anyone attacks it first.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to this conlusion either. It simply follows some logical steps.
As for getting the kurds etc to overthrow Saddam. Well they didn't manage it in 1991, when the US disgustingly abandoned them to be slaughtered by Iraqi troops.
I was under the impression that theyve only refused entry to UN inspectors who werent from allied/friendly nations. Wasnt aware theyd banned all weapons inspectors from some areas.
Sorry but you are very, very wrong about the axis of evil. Invading a battered and broken country like Iraq is a totally different to invading a country such as Iran or NK. Do you honestly think that Bush is going to risk a war with China over this? I dont think its me living in an alternate reality mate.
2, Iran has long range weapons (much more of a threat than Iraq), so why is it unreasonable to assume that Iran wouldn't be on the target list. Unless the US is guilty of crass and mass hypocrisy?
3, Iran is hardly capable of putting up any more resistence than Iraq. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to argue that Iran would be easier to topple than Iraq. Although it appears to have developed long range weaopns, it is a country with quite a few moderates, and an outdated air force and army.
5, The US has already been posturing, and has accused Iran of allowing al-Qaeada soldiers to use its country as an escape, it has also said it is developing weapons of mass destruction. Bush has said Iran is "on notice".
4, RE: weapons inspectors. I never said they had banned all weapons inspectors. The serious question being, what is the radical difference between the US policy what Iraq has done
5, On a personal level. I'm sure that dubya would be itching to depose Castro, but there isn't the political will at the moment. How exactly is Cuba on the 'axis of evil'?
1. Well if youd been around more than 4 days you might have known that im very much against an invasion of iraq. But its quite obvious why the US wants to invade, just because the country and the military is in a shambles, doesnt mean they arent a threat.
2,3,4 - Iran...As far as im aware, Iran hasnt made any threats against the US or Israel. Iraq has, which means they are a more immediate 'threat'.
Im a little confused as to why you assume that all action against the axis of evil will be military. Iraq is far more unstable than any of the other nations in the axis and will be dealt with as such it appears.
Iraq is a strange one. Saddam is not well liked over in the middle east, the support Iraq is getting from the arab world is mainly support for the Iraqi people rather than the government. The support for Iraq is reasonably high among the arab nations but because of their history, the support isnt total. That wouldnt be the case with Iran, the entire arab world would unite in their defence, along with a large part of the western world.
Yes there will be actions taken against the other axis nations but in my opinion, they wont be military. Far more likely to be sanctions, trade embargos, economic attacks etc.
5. Read it again mate...I never said all weapons inspectors either...so what exactly have their done then? Theyve banned UN inspectors from possible hostile nations? The difference being that Saddam had banned ALL weapons inspectors regardless of their origin.
6. Im as confused as you as to why Cuba is on the list.
Its also nice to see someone with intelligence, who can debate a subject without screaming and shouting.
Just out of interest, as it is not my area of expertise. On the sanctions issue. Aren't Iran and North Korea already heavily sanctioned by the US? If this is the case, what more could they do in terms of economic disruption?
I couldn't see the UN endorsing these sanctions globally just because the US doesn't like these countries.
On an aside, and on the subject of Iraq. It can't be forgotten that according to some sources, the invasion of Kuwait was a diplomatic misunderstanding that the Americans pounced on.
The Iraqis (being friends of convenience with the US) genuinely thought they had the blessing of the US to take the land (Which I believe they had a historical claim on).
What say ye on my predictions for the destabilisation of the middle east after a US attack? The part where i wrote about Iran having a pop at Iraq, Saudi princes overthrown etc. Way wide of your thinking?
As for UN endorsement, well when it comes down to it, the UN will do what its told. The UN wouldnt exist without US support and they know it.
As for that 'misunderstanding' about an 'ok' from the US for the invasion...Well that all comes down to your point of view prior to reading up on what was said. Personally I didnt read it as a go ahead for Iraq but I can see how some people could read that. Its a contentious and subjective issue and another of those agree to disagree issues
Totally agree with you on the destabilisation of the region. I dont know enough about the current situation in Iran to be able to comment on how likely they are to invade after Iraq falls. Although I dont think its that likely considering current public opinion across the world. If they did try and invade, they would be dealt with by the US/UN.
Saudi is going to fall soon anyway. The princes can only stay in power for so long against the wishes of the entire country. The vast majority of Saudis are against the US and the pro-US monarchy and sooner or later, they will be heard. It even seems as though the US is finally waking up to this and is finally starting to realise that they arent that popular amongst the saudi people. The Saudi princes will be gone in a couple of years at most, what will replace them is anyones guess
Having said that, I cant think of anything that would be disruptive to the region than leaving Saddam in power, him firing something nasty at Israel and Israel retaliating by turning Iraq into a pool of glass.
I'm curious as to the source of your information, Adam, since it is significantly at odds with sources I have spoken to (who have been on the ground in Iraq).
Also, the same kind of "logic" was used before the Gulf War. It was flawed then too.
Saadams overthorw is just a Bush family vendetta... America does not care about the Kurds or the Suuni Muslims.
Just as bad as the Arabs are America, but are a more favourable regime for personal liberty.
If this goes nuclear, God help us all.
Amen
#1 Why does the motive matter? Nobody can deny that the Iraqi people would be better of without Saddam in power.
#2 Can you explain how this is US imperialism?
and although he may not reach US mainland, there are plenty of US (and western) interest within the region, including massive oil supplies.
It was also argues that Bush is on his third reason for wanting to attack Iraq, none of which (as claimed) can be dismissed entirely, and I fgured that I could actually add a fourth. Saddam is not, and has never, complied with the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire. That in itself is sufficient grounds for an attack.
But lets be honest, we can piss about arguing for a reason to attck Iraq for months but let me ask you this. Do you think that his continuing existence is of benefot to the region. How else would you address the situation. As we have often said here, it is simple to argue against something, if you have no realistic alternative then what is it you are arguing for?
Sweeping statements like that are very dangerous things. How do you know that Iraq would be better off, being as we cannot see into the future and see what will come after him?
If all of Iraq is destroyed in a fiery blaze, would you consider the Iraqi people to be better off?
Who said anything about Iraq being destroyed? We are talking about Saddam being deposed.
When Saddam is deposed, the sanctions which the west have wrongly been putting on Iraq will be lifted. They will be able to eat and prosper as a country once more.
Sorry but thats the biggest cop out ive ever heard, not trying to help someone simply because theres a chance that what comes after might be worse...Thats like saying you wouldnt save someone from being run over by a car because theres a chance they might be raped and murdered in the future. Chances have to be taken in this world of ours. Yes things might be worse, but then they might be a million times better.
Granted we cant see what will come after him but seeing as the west will have gotten rid of Saddam, they will hardly sit back and watch someone worse come into power now will they.
Why is it that the US never attacked Afghanistan for the six years that the Taliban were in power? Why did they not intervene in the countless African states run by despot dictators?
All of the arguments add up to the fact that it is about oil and revenge.
As for none of Bush's previous reasons for attacking being disclaimed. I can assume you can point me in the direction of the links showing Iraqi involvement with al-Qaeda?
The second reason given is the refusal to allow weapons inspectors, has been cleverly sidestepped by Saddam. Who is a master at diplomatic posturing. The fact remains that George Bush has been quoted as saying that even if they allow unfettered access to weapons inspectors, he still wants to attack Iraq.
Iraq has been able to reach Israel for the past 10 years. If he was such an unstable force, then why has he not utilised this capability so far? If he is so dangerous, why is it that the issue of Iraq has only come to the fore in the past three months?
I'd like someone advocating the overthrow of Saddam to tell em what regime he would be replaced with. The US is totally disinterested in nation building as demonstrated in Afghanistan and look at the state of that country now.
Greenhat, which part of my theory do you wish me to clarify. It is similar to the thinking of plenty of academics and journalists, many of whom are in the middle east.
The Saudi example is pretty much common knowledge and the fact that the Saudi's are 'friends' of the US shows the hypocrisy employed by the US.
I don't see how the logic was "flawed" during the Gulf War. The situation was never given the chance to materialise. I did state that this was a scenario which I feel is likely in the event of Saddam being deposed.
In the Gulf War, as you may well be familiar, the US held back from toppling Saddam. They had the chance to do it, but Bush snr chose not to.
Instead they incited an uprising and in one of the most disgraceful acts of the late 20th Century, left the poorly armed and trained Kurds to be slaughtered by the Republican Guard.
No, it's not a cop out and your analogy is broken. You asked who was talking about Iraq being destroyed, well, I was. It's all very well to say that you're talking about Saddam being deposed, but to expect that he'll be deposed without a fight is very optimistic. More likely the US will have to go in with all guns blazing and make a bomb site out of half the country with all their usual finesse and accuracy.
It's in no way the same as not saving someone from a car accident. In the car accident case you have clear evidence of what is about to happen and you know that by your actions you will remove the person from the imminant danger that they are in. With Iraq, the situation is far less black and white, and by removing Saddam you have absolutely no guarantee that Iraq will be made a more stable and better place. Instead you open up the possibility of a power vacuum in the area, regardless of any mess caused by the deposing itself.
Yes, Saddam is a bad and corrupt leader, but what is needed is a plan for the future, not just one which sees that Mr Bush gets his man and then leaves the country in a mess.
Im against an invasion of iraq and i dont believe an invasion of iraq is necessary to get rid of saddam. Obviously if that were to happen then they wouldnt be better off but my statement was based on my views and the destruction of Iraq isnt an option.
You are right, in this case things are far more clear because we already know whats happening in Iraq. We know the result of leaving Saddam in power. Sanctions will continue, hundreds of thousands will die as a result. Saddam will continue to terrorise his own people and should he develop nukes then he will use them.
How long do you suggest we leave it? How many Iraqis will die before we have a cast iron guarantee of what will happen when Saddam goes? Those Iraqis that manage to flee the country are crying out for help and are obviously willing to take the chance.
So, you're OK with it as long as the West has decided what is good for the Iraqis? Talk about arrogant and imperialistic.
Adam,
I'd like to know your sources for the "attitude" of the Iraqi people.
As to your "logic", it isn't logic. It's a series of conclusions and hypothetical events all based on a variety of assumptions, few or none of which may in fact be true. Just because some others have chosen to discuss those same scenarios does not mean they are accurate.
One of the scenarios that was discussed as Armageddon starting in relation to the Gulf War was Iraq attacking Israel, leading to Israeli retaliation. Well, Iraq DID attack Israel. But the rest of the assumptions proved to be false.
You assume that I intend the west to come up with a plan, that's arrogance.
Also even if there was a plan for after Saddam was removed, I would still not be "ok" with an invasion, no.
Unlike Afghanistan?
So you would have preferred the Taliban to stay then?
My eyes have grown wider the more I have read...
Can you ask these questions for me, just to understand where you are coming from;
Do you believe that the Taliban should have remained in power in Afghanistan? Do you believe that Saddam should remain? If not, how would you propose to removed them, if you do, then why? Do you rule out force in
any situation?Do you honestly believe that the Taliban would have been removed by the US had Sept 11 not have happened? Would people be crying out for them to be ousted? No, most of the world would not even have a clue who the Taliban are apart from those nutters who blew up some Bhuddas.
The Taliban were in power for six years before the 'War on Terror'. What was radically different about their regime which made it acceptable for them to be 'left in power' in that time?
To answer your question.
I do believe the Taliban should have remained in power until such a time as the civil war sorted the situation out. As it is, the political situation is worse than it was before, with rival factions fighting each other, assasinations of leading political figures. I'm pretty sure that the Taliban will resume power at some point in Afghanistan.
Will the US go out and oust them again?
There are regimes with equally poor human rights records. China being a prime example, but the US can't push them around.
I believe that Saddam should remain in power if he co-operates with the UN weapons inspectors, and until such a point that he poses a proven and tangible threat to world security.
But if, for whatever reason, he is ousted. Do it after serious thought has been given to what will replace Saddam.
No I don't rule out force in any situation. Some times it is neccessary. Personally I feel in the Iraq situation, force is not neccessary.
In terms of the Afghan situation. I can understand the argument for use of force. However it was executed in a cowardly fashion with an extremely short term agenda.
You obviously missed the US bombing Afghanistan during Clinton’s tenure then, did you?
But, no, I don’t believe that they would have gone in so hard as they did, if it hadn’t been for 11/9, just as they haven’t attacked Zimbabwe and many other oppressive regimes. But then they weren’t a threat to the US or US interests. I don’t really care for the reason they did it, I’m just grateful that they did because it achieve more than the riginal war aims. As apparently are the Afghans.
I think it was Afghans who fought the ground war. The US gave air support.
As opposed to what exactly? Oppression of the mass population, perhaps if you were a female Afghani, you might feel a little different.
So, should we ignore it when we can make a difference then?
Perhaps you’ve missed something. The Gulf War ceasefire came into force in 1991. He still hasn’t abided by its terms. I’d say that supports your own argument about co-operating. Unless you have a timeframe greater than 11 years in mind…
So, your assertion is that we should wait until he uses WMD? Or until he holds someone to ransom with the threat of using them?