|Whats will the outcome be if we attack Sadam?||Kristin|
Sep 13, 2002 7:34 AM
|If we do this thing (which I personally am not on board with) what will some of the long term repercussions be do you think? Whether or not you agree with it, do you think it will happen?|
|Well, let's take it one step at a time||PaulCL|
Sep 13, 2002 7:42 AM
|1. The US will probably bomb the heck out of 'em
2. US soldiers will die in groung combat
3. Saddam will probably go hide in the Sudan or ?
4. Before hiding, Saddam will shoot scuds at Isreal - gas?
5. The middle eastern nations will publicly be up in arms and po'ed, but privately relieved Saddam is gone
6. Terrorists will be able to recruit easily from the rank and file arabs. Because they will all hate us even more
7. Gas prices will go to $3.00 per gallon
8. A useless, puppet government will be set up in Iraq
9. All Islamics from the entire world will make the US target #1 meaning more domestic attacks.
I hope and pray for a peaceful solution. I see nothing good coming out of an attack - justified or not. I think we may be justified attacking militarily, but don't think we should. Paul
Sep 13, 2002 10:42 AM
|1. The US will bomb the heck of of them.
2. US soldiers will die in ground combat.
3. Saddam will be captured, killed, or go-to-ground ala Bin Laden.
4. The middle eastern nations will be surprisingly quiet and circumspect.
5. Terrorists will see their recruiting efforts dry up as potential recruits recognize the futility.
6. Gas prices will go down to 90 cents a gallon as sanctioned Iraqi supplies come back into the market openly and freely.
7. An initially useless puppet government will be set up in Iraq but eventually become a stable, independent authority.
8. Moderate Moslems will begin to politically dominate the Islamists and the tide will have been turned.
Sep 13, 2002 10:59 AM
|you seem to be equating Iraq with Islamic Extremists which isn't the case. Iraq is one of the most progressive, liberal secular muslim states b/c it's run by a guy who is interested in himself not Islamic fundamentalism.
I don't see how us attacking Iraq will do anything as far as Islamic extremists go other than fueling the fire.
|Hmm...I wonder if there is any precedent here...||mr_spin|
Sep 13, 2002 8:08 AM
|Gee, haven't we done that already?
I guess what will happen is:
1. A lot of people will die, including Americans.
2. We'll find buildings and warehouses that contain vague references to weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps translated copies of Richard Rhodes pulitzer prize winning book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb." Great book, by the way.
3. Saddam will still remain in power.
4. The GOP takes the mid-term elections
5. Rinse. Repeat.
|Much wailing and gnashing of teeth.||Sintesi|
Sep 13, 2002 8:37 AM
|It's hard to gauge. The opposition against Saddam in his own country might be so strong a general revolt will occur and oust the bastard with relative ease. He runs that country by fear and that doesn't engender loyalty in my experience.
Then again, the Iraqis might very well defend their homeland inch by inch with a modern Stalingrad erupting in Bagdhad. A protracted unpopular conflict that divides our nation and generally paints the US as modern day imperialists.
It's a crapshoot and I see elements of both scenarios with equal validity. If we do this thing we gotta do it with both feet forward and no looking back. The US is already the scapegoat for every problem in the third world, you can expect we will catch way more crap slung our way. We'll need to be strong. We'll need friends
My feeling right now is this is a bad idea, and a bad precedent, although a democratic Iraq could be a beautiful thing. I hope the UN jumps on board and/or the Iraqi govt. finally caves in under the pressure and lets us disarm them.
If we do go tho, I'm behind our guys 120%. No equivocating.
|What would be the outcome if Hussein attacks us?||Me Dot Org|
Sep 13, 2002 8:47 AM
|First of all, have you noticed how he is 'one name famous', like Madonna or Cher? Why do we say 'Hitler' instead of 'Adolph'?
People say that:
1. Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
2. He has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people.
3. He has broken all his accords with the United Nations.
4. Therefore he should be attacked.
What I would point out is:
1. All of these 4 points were true before 9/11/01, yet few in the government were talking about invading Iraq before that date.
2. Hussein's actions have repeatedly shown a tremendous concern for his own survival.
3. Yes, he used chemicals weapons against the Kurds in his own country. They could not retaliate.
4. He had opportunity to use chemical weapons in the Gulf war. The allies had the capablity of retaliating. He chose not to use chemical weapons.
Implicit in the argument that we should attack Iraq is that Hussein's mindset is the same is Bin Laden. Hussein is a Sunni Musim, not Wahabi like Bin Laden. He has enough problems with the Shi'a majority in his own country. The Baathist party has never been a fundamendalist regime.(When Hussein was Vice-President, he institued a mandatory literacy policy for men and women.) Any alliance between al Qaeda and Hussein is an alliance born of a common enemy, not of common goals.
Hussein is cruel, paranoid and evil, but his primary goal is to stay in power. Bin Laden's primary goal is to remove the infidel from Mecca.
Would Hussein use weapons of mass destruction against the United States knowing that it would mean his own destruction?
|What would be the outcome if Hussein attacks us?||Sintesi|
Sep 13, 2002 9:05 AM
|"Would Hussein use weapons of mass destruction against the United States knowing that it would mean his own destruction?"
Or would he secretly give them to someone else to use?
What if Israel finds the possibility too risky. What if they go it alone? They've bombed Iraq before.
I think your assesment is generally correct but as Pres Bush pointed out containment strategy is a risk is it not? Is this a risk we should be taking? Do we wait for absolute confirmation of WMDs or do we just eliminate the risk in the first place?
The best solution is if Iraq just gave in to the UN's original demands and be done with it. He could stay in power until death.
Both arguments have merit here.
|He would attack Israel first||Tig|
Sep 13, 2002 11:27 AM
|Just like before, he'd love to be the hero of the Islamic world by killing as many Israelis as possible. Of course, since our government is nearly controlled by Israel and US Jews with their deep pockets, instead of the majority of US citizens, we'd have to defend them yet again. As long as they run our foreign policy and we are close allies, US citizens will continue to be targeted by extremist Muslims. What benefit do we get out of it? Nothing. I'm not anti-Jew, I'm just sick of them screwing us for their gain.
I love my country but fear my government.
|I'm glad someone said it||cyclejim|
Sep 14, 2002 4:58 PM
|I am in general agreement with your opinion on how our govt is controlled somewhat by Israel. What else could explain the foreign policy of the US? Isn't Israel currently in direct violation of several UN resolutions? Why aren't we forcing them to comply with the UN? Saddam needs to go obviously, but I am even more bothered by the pending US attack because I fought in the first Gulf War and we all went through too much to be here once again. Yes, I've heard all the reasons why we shouldn't have taken Saddam out. Look at where we are now!
Another thing that bothers me is the idea that Islamic terrorists hate us just because they don't believe in freedom or for no reason at all. There is a reason why the US is hated in many parts of the world, its our foreign policy. You can look at many other democratic, free countries and see that they are not hated or being targeted by Islamic terrorists. Why is it just us?
|Yeah, no kidding. nm||Leisure|
Sep 15, 2002 3:07 AM
|Just look at the comparative death toll between Islam and Israel. Isn't it something like ten times as many Islamics dying versus Israelis? It's kind of obvious to me who the real terrorists are.
And we're siding with them.
|I sincerely hope||PaulCL|
Sep 13, 2002 9:06 AM
|that our government (W's folks) have completely looked into the rivalry between Islamic sects. Very interesting.
My feeling is that the US will not attack unilaterally. From W's speech yesterday, I think he was prodding the UN to do the work so he won't have to. Maybe W's saber rattling for the last six months was a premeditated ploy to force the UN into action or into joining his (our) action.
Two things I am certain about:
1. Saddam has to go...somehow, sometime soon
2. If the US sends troops, I, like Sintesi, will support them 100%
Sep 13, 2002 9:11 AM
|I think it will open a huge can of worms if the US attacks without UN approval. Any Arab nation that was on the fence with the US before will be dead set against us now. In a very real sense it could add more sympathy/support to groups like AlQueda.|
|Didn't it take us about...||Wayne|
Sep 13, 2002 9:16 AM
|6 months last time to get enough troops to the region. Of course it prooved to be overkill, but even with far fewer troops without a base country all those troops would have to come in off of boats or flown in from air bases that will allow us to use their space. Not to mention if the Saudis won't let us even use their/our air bases.
Bottom line, he's got months and months to back down and let the weapon inspectors in. The big question then is what are we going to do if they don't find anything.
But if we don't do anything and he ends up with a nuke then what are we going to do? Pretty hard to send in ground troops when you know alot will die, and the US's proven lack of a stomach for large casualty figures.