The Liberal Solution to Saddam

[Barkeep49]

Sorry to start another thread about Iraq, but here is the problem I am dealing with:

I want to hear a ligitimate liberal thought on the problem Saddam Husein, and by extension numerous other murderous dictators the world over, present. I say this as someone who is on most social issues at least on the liberal side, if not the far liberal side (for instance I believe with-out a doubt that Gays should have the right to be married).

On the issue of Iraq I hear a lot of nos and not a lot of positive ideology. I agree that war might not be the answer. I also agree that sanctions harm a lot of Iraqi people. So would the liberal response be to remove sanctions in order to help the Iraqi people? How does that help solve the underlying problem of the muderous dictator who is ruling over them?

I am really hoping that this thread isn't thread jacked by those on the board who don't like liberals or people who simply consider themselves conservatives. I have heard a well articulated conservative solution to Saddam and am simply hoping that someone can present an alternative view point so that I may be a better informed and better citizen when considering the relative merits of pro and anti war statements.

[bosshogg23]

I consider myself a liberal.

The past week has greatly swayed my opinion on the topic. Finding NUMEROUS empty warheads has convinced me that Iraq simply has so much "illegal" activity going on, that they themselves cannot account for all of it.

I think it is unfortunate but I also see it as a necessary war at SOME point.

I feel that resolving the N. Korean nuclear situation is much more a priority at this point in time.

My opinion on Iraq changes almost daily, with the uncovering of new evidence........my soon to be brother-in-law has been called to Iraq to guard potential POW's. I certaintly wish it could be avoided but I dont see how.

*Edit*
Sanctions against a country hurt the poor most of all IMHO.

[Barkeep49]

See I agree that Iraq is a war of choice and that if we must confront a danger to our way of life, and others who practice our way of life, than that country should be North Korea. However, this to me still does not let Saddam off the hook for exactly the reasons that so many are ready to go to war (i.e. threat to US allies, chemical warfare against own citizens, etc).

Edit for clarity.

[sterlingice]

I'm not a liberal, per se but two words to consider: "Quality Snipers"

SI

[astralhaze]

Okay, I will bite. The "liberal" solution is to do absolutely nothing. It is simply not up to other nations to decide the leadership of other countries, IMO. The people of Iraq hold the power to remove Saddam. This has been demonstrated countless times through history. Whether we are talking about Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Iran, or even the United States, revolutions happen all the time. At some point in time, it is inevitable that Saddam will be overthrown. Saddam's treatment of his own people is not something we should interfere with. We can, and should, pressure him politically and diplomatically, but should under no circumstances interfere. The United States has a long and sordid history of intervening in foreign countries that I think needs to stop. I can't in good conscience say that the U.S. should have not intervened in Nicaragua and then turn around and say it is ok for us to intervene in Iraq, no matter how big a bastard Saddam is. Incidentally, the United States was not at all concerned with Saddam's treatment of his own people before he invaded Kuwait. In fact, he was considered an ally.

As for weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons and so forth, I have to quote Eric Cartman and say "what's the big fuckin deal bitch?" We have weapons of mass destruction, Britain has weapons of mass destruction, Israel has weapons of mass destruction, hell, India and Pakistan have weapons of mass destruction. Has Saddam used weapons of mass destruction? Never. He has used poison gas, both on his own people and Iran, but again, that was while he was a U.S. ally and we didn't care in the slightest. All of the participants in the First World War used poison gas, does that mean we can invade Britain and France, force them to disarm, and put their leaders in exile? Hell, Truman dropped atomic bombs on Japanese cities and the U.S. regularly flattened entire German and Japanese towns during WWII, killing untold numbers of civilians. Is the U.S. considered a rogue state and Harry Truman a murderous fanatic? If Saddam ever used the weapons we claim he has on us, of course we have a right to defend ourselves, but that has never happened. People seem to forget this in our rush to kill Saddam. Iraq has never, repeat, never attacked the United States. They did attack Iran, with our blessing, and Kuwait, which they were punished for.

My solution? Keep weapons inspectors in Iraq, permanently if need be, to keep him in check, if only to satisfy the United States and Britain. The U.N. should continue to pressure Iraq through diplomatic isolation. End the sanitations and don't go to war. I would be very shocked if Iraq ever attacked the United States and it is a historical certainty that Saddam will be overthrown at some point in the not too distant future. If we go to war, a U.S. client regime will be installed, probably very similar to Saudi Arabia, and it will be used by Islamic fundamentalists as another reason to hate the United States, thus impressing another generation of terrorists. I have yet to hear one argument FOR going to war that rang true with me.

[HornedFrog Purple]

astral,

I am not going to debate your view on Iraq because everyone is entitled to their own opinion but the premise that eventually every populace will overthrow its tyrannical leader is shaky at best.

For instance, the man responsible for more murder of his own people than any other person in history was Stalin. The documented numbers are staggering, yet he was never hung in the public square.

An example of someone who did follow this premise was Mussolini along with his wife. However it took many many months of physical bombings and "black-ops" operations (the hidden part of WWII) before it happened.

In most, but not all cases it has taken an outside source physically demolishing land or killing people for the impetus of overthrowing a dictator. I think it is reasonable to assume that Hussein is a dictator. I do not believe personally that waiting it out will work in this situation, due to the area of the world Iraq is in, the almost fanatical loyalty his people have towards him and the apparent stranglehold he has on his country. Through various news sources I have never heard or read of an actual resistance movement of any substance, although I would assume there are small bubbles of them somewhere.

The idea of sanctions and embargos was to support the idea you wish in that the people would get angry and desparate and Hussein would be overthrown. It hasnt happened and in actuality I believe his loyalty from his people has increased, it certainly has shown no evidence of wavering.

[IMetTrentGreen]

my answer is the same as astralhazes, its really none of our business. we should pressure him, as well as all other unfit dictators, but ultimately i'm not for war (or any physical interference on our part) unless we are attacked first, or have overwhelming proof of an imminent attack

ps- the trained snipers thing sits well with me, too

[andy m]

yep, leave them alone. start reparations, be nice to them, less heavy handed. stop prancing around like an 18 year old testosterone fueled jock looking for a fight on a saturday night.

replacing saddam isn't going to do anything other than inflame the entire middle east region and fuck the world up even worse. why not try something tamer? and if we're so hot on the trail of iraq, it is odd why we don't see similar muscle flexing from our leaders towards north korea and israel also, 2 other countries who are run by lunatics hell bent on being stupid.

i dislike the term liberal, because it is used by violence crazed, patriotic goofballs as a stick to beat nicer people about the head with.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple


For instance, the man responsible for more murder of his own people than any other person in history was Stalin. The documented numbers are staggering, yet he was never hung in the public square.

Yes. But you are aware of the non-violent revolution which took place in the Soviet Union in 1989, ending communism in that country, correct? It may have taken a long time, but it did happen.

In most, but not all cases it has taken an outside source physically demolishing land or killing people for the impetus of overthrowing a dictator.

So, kind of like Guatemala, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran, East Germany, the U.S.S.R., all of the baltic states, Chile, China, Angola, Ethiopia, Yemen, etc? All of these countries have had revolutions during the 20'th century, none of which had the requirements you claim. It is a historical fact that all governments are overthrown eventually.

The idea of sanctions and embargos was to support the idea you wish in that the people would get angry and desparate and Hussein would be overthrown. It hasnt happened and in actuality I believe his loyalty from his people has increased, it certainly has shown no evidence of wavering.

Was that the aim? If so, it wasn't very well thought out. The consequence was quite predictable. If anything, it has tightened Saddam's grip on the country because the people blame the United States for their starvation, lack of adequate medical supplies, etc. Whether this is valid or not is an entirely seperate debate. Add to this the carpet bombing of Baghdad during the Gulf War and I would be surprised if the Iraqi people didn't hate us.

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Okay, I will bite. The "liberal" solution is to do absolutely nothing.

Define nothing. Nothing as in status quo? Nothing as in remove sanctions? You mispell it later, but my impression is that you want to remove sanctions from Iraq. This is actually not doing "nothing".

It seems clear that your nothing is actually nothing economic or nothing involving aggressive war acts. The only methods you accept is inspections and diplomacy (you say "politics", too, but of course I'm sure you are aware that politics is a domestic reference only, and that diplomacy is sort of like international politics).

Let me tell you what nothing means here then. Nothing means the only punishment Iraq receives for attacking Kuwait is inspections. Your "nothing" would even have us removing the no-fly zones, allow Iraq to maintain the large military forces that it used to invade Kuwait, and allow them to pursue WMD to their heart's content. The inspectors are being misled by the nose, so the one thing you allow within the country is pointless.

In fact, I don't even know why if you feel this way that you accept inspections there. After all, what are we going to do if we find something? Sanctions? Oops, no, that's against the liberal system of doing things. Go to war or bomb the sights? Nope, that sounds an awful lot like aggressive acts of war--can't do that, says the liberal.

In fact, your way of doing things essentially lets anyone do whatever they want and invalidates the United Nations altogether.

Gee, sounds like a good idea to me.

It is simply not up to other nations to decide the leadership of other countries, IMO.

Normally, I agree with this. Ideally, the people of any given country makes the decision on who is in power in their country. Some countries don't work that way (it's not like every country is a democracy), but whatever system they believe is the way to determine their leader, so be it.

The problem is that leaders aren't just making decisions that affect their own people. They are also making decisions that affect other people, such as the people of Kuwait. Or the people of Israel. Or the people killed by the terrorists raised in camps in Iraqi territory. Or the people killed by Palestinian bombers--including the bombers themselves--because of the promise of a cash payment to their loved ones from Iraq.

Each country does not live in its own little bubble, as much as you might prefer that. Human society has now gone global, and the decisions made in one country--any country--can have deep ramifications to all other countries throughout the world.

It is for this reason that the United Nations was formed. Leaders cannot be trusted to police themselves when it comes to matters which involve other countries. So the U.N. was formed to serve as that additional check and balance.

Iraq signed on as a member of the U.N. and then its leader chose to violate the precepts of the international agreements which form the basis for the U.N. by invading Kuwait.

This invasion was eventually defeated and punishment was put into place. Since then, Hussein has done nothing but dance from one foot to the other diplomatically, developing WMDs on one hand while misleading inspectors with the others. Twelve years later, he continues to do so.

At this point, it would seem clear that this leader cannot be trusted with decisions which impact the lives of millions, even billions, outside of his own realm of control. Indeed, it seems clear that he in fact desires nothing but ill will to most of the international community, and in particular Western nations.

Removing a leader is a harsh step to take, but we have few other options remaining. Hussein has shown he will not step down and he will not change his ways, and those ways put the entire security of the Middle East at risk, above and beyond his potential for developing WMDs and perhaps using them on enemy states (like Israel) or giving them to terrorists who might be able to use them even further from their origins.

The people of Iraq hold the power to remove Saddam. This has been demonstrated countless times through history. Whether we are talking about Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Iran, or even the United States, revolutions happen all the time. At some point in time, it is inevitable that Saddam will be overthrown.

It has also been demonstrated that dictatorships can stand the test of time as well. Ever heard of Stalin? He ruled for 30 years and was responsible for his own genocidal camps, but when he died, the Soviet Union was stable as it had ever been. Hitler, of course, is the reigning champ of bad leaders, but it was the Soviet Union and the Allied forces that removed him from power. Castro has been running Cuba with an iron hand now for 43 years, and last I checked he wasn't about to get tossed on his keister. Napolean not only was never overthrown by his own people, they welcomed him back a second time. Franco ran Spain for 40 years and was not known to be gentle either. Mussolini WAS killed by his own people--after the Allies had pretty much taken over the country. Milosevic became yet another member of the Genocide Club, and he still has people clamoring for his release. Mao-Tse-Tung was brutal in his handling of his country's internal affairs and he is regarded as China's greatest modern leader. Emperor Hirohito was the emperor of Japan decades after he unwisely got into a war he couldn't win and did little to dissuade his generals toward surrender, resulting in the decision that made Japan the only ever victim of a nuclear attack.

Yes, you can march a similar list out of the opposite, I'm sure, but the point is that Saddam's removal by Iraq's own people is not the sure thing you would make it out to be. It is not inevitable, and, indeed, history shows this quite clearly. If I can find even one lengthy reign in contrary to your point, that validates the whole thing. And I have marched out several--off the top of my head just from my knowledge of history without even any need for research.

The fact is that despite a long and brutal border war with Iran that heavily depleted the country's natural and economic resources--not to mention its stock of young and able fighting men; Hussein's use of WPM's on his own people; his decision to not only risk war with the U.N. by invading Kuwait, but then actually choosing to do so, at the cost of thousands more Iraqi lives; the following sanctions which have economically devastated the country; and his continuing international games putting the people of Iraq again at risk of going to war with the United Nations, Hussein has still not been removed by his people. What's it been 22 years or so? At what point, do the people of Iraq say enough is enough? It is clear they never will, so I would ask again (restating the original poster's question), what is your solution to Saddam if you're wrong about his "inevitable" removal from power?

Saddam's treatment of his own people is not something we should interfere with. We can, and should, pressure him politically and diplomatically, but should under no circumstances interfere.

If we shouldn't interfere with the treatment of his own people, why should we even pressure him diplomatically? And once again, if international punishment of weight can only be undertaken trhough economic or military actions, and liberals were to outlaw those methods of conflict resoltuion, what on Earthly good would diplomacy do.

A LIBERAL U.S.: "Stop gassing the Kurds."
HUSSEIN'S IRAQ: "No."
A LIBERAL U.S.: "Please?"
HUSSEIN's IRAQ: "No."
A LIBERAL U.S.: "Pretty please with a cherry on top."
HUSSEIN'S IRAQ: "Well....no."
A LIBERAL U.S.: "If you don't stop, we'll be mad at you."
HUSSEIN'S IRAQ: "We'll live."
A LIBERAL U.S.: "Stop, and I'll be your best friend?"
HUSSEIN'S IRAQ: "No."
A LIBERAL U.S.: "But you won't get a Happy Ramadan card from us!"
HUSSEIN'S IRAQ: "Well, okay...psyche!"

I would love to know just how diplomacy would work without the possibility of further and more serious actions. If the worst you can do to a murderer is have him spend a night in the drunk tank, why would he stop murdering (assuming doing such is what he wants to do)?

As for whether we should care about his treatment of his own people, that's a trickier one, I admit. There is a point at which we need to allow other countries to remain entirely sovereign.

But the fact of the matter is that the U.S. and the U.N. (with the U.S.) have the power to stop things like genocide. And the origins of pretty much every major religion (including Islam) state that genocide is wrong, and allowing genocide to happen when we have the power to stop it is as bad as being the killers ourselves.

Maybe you can turn your back on the people of Iraq or Bosnia or China or Somalia, but a lot of us can't. I wish I could be that callous, but it's just not in me. What is really funny is that the liberal will go out of his way to protect a tree or an endangered species or a murderer on death row, but he won't step to the plate when a foreign oppressed group is involved.

I think the outright gassing of your own people is well within range of an action that calls for international attention, IMO. But let's not kid ourselves. Hussein has a long list of transgressions against both his own people and the international community. If this action is to be taken (an attack on Iraq by U.N. forces), it is not for his treatment of the Kurds alone, but his actions as a whole.

The United States has a long and sordid history of intervening in foreign countries that I think needs to stop. I can't in good conscience say that the U.S. should have not intervened in Nicaragua and then turn around and say it is ok for us to intervene in Iraq, no matter how big a bastard Saddam is.

I can't always say I have been happy with the U.S.'s willingness to intervene in the business of other countries either. I didn't like the situation with Nicaragua or Grenada or countless other forays into international politics.

But sometimes it is necessary, IMO. Trying to do something about the starvation in Somalia was necessary. Trying to take action against Milosevic in Bosnia was necessary. Trying to take down Hitler 60 years ago was necessary. And I am afraid that Hussein and Iraq has proven to me and many others that such necessity has arisen again, much to our dismay.

Incidentally, the United States was not at all concerned with Saddam's treatment of his own people before he invaded Kuwait. In fact, he was considered an ally.

And that is to our shame. The U.S. is no Righteous Holy Land, and don't let ultra conservatives tell you otherwise. While for some actions, we do have ideological beliefs backing them up, many, even most, of our actions are entirely American-interest based.

Our leaders--both Republican and Democrat--are fallible. They cannot see the future. Everything has to be weighed on a pros and cons level from our perspective to determine what our reaction to any given act is going to be. Sometimes it is clear that one choice is bad and another is good. But I am guessing most of the time it is a choice between two evils, much as our last presidential election was purported to be.

What would you have the U.S. do back then? Support Iraq, which was gassing a segment of its own people, but warring against the fundamentalist hordes of the Ayatollah at the same time, and serving as a huge roadblock between Iran and the volatile region around Israel just west of Iraq? Or impossibly support Iran, which had distinctly established itself as an enemy of both the U.S. and the western world at large during the hostage crisis, and which was known then (and still is now known) as a fount and haven for budding terrorists? Either way, the U.S. is going to have detractors. Back then, they made the obvious decision. Now, they're being ripped for it. Had they gone the other way, maybe Iraq wouldn't be so hot now, but we might be dealing a lot more with Iran. It's a no-win situation.

If you're looking for a good and honest country to support, keep dreaming, buddy, because one has never existed. Not here in the U.S. and not in Iraq. Or in Great Britain. Or the Great Dissenters, France and Germany. Or the gung-ho Israelis, or the nuke-developing North Koreans. Or the regrouping Russians, or Big red China.

There's nothing sadder than an idealist in a practical world.

As for weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons and so forth, I have to quote Eric Cartman and say "what's the big fuckin deal bitch?"

Imagine 9/11, only losing ten, a hundred, or a thousand times as many lives. Imagine the use of such dipping the world into a catastrophic nuclear war, the ultimate irony?

Maybe it's time you did some research and find out what nerve gas can do to a man. Or what someone looks like with fullblown Anthrax. Or Ebola. Or a radiation-scarred victim who was "lucky" enough to just be outside of blast incineration range.

And all you need is a terrorist with the will (check), the intelligence (check), the money (check-squared) to get it done. Toss in an entity--like a country under the control of a dictator known to have had a program for WMD in the past and known to hate the U.S. and all western ways and society--with the funds and know how to develop a WPM that such a terrorist can use, and bingo, millions dead. Maybe more.

We have weapons of mass destruction, Britain has weapons of mass destruction, Israel has weapons of mass destruction, hell, India and Pakistan have weapons of mass destruction.

None of those countries recently lost a war, after which they were forbidden to develop such weapons. None seem particularly close to using them either, with the exception of India and Pakistan, and they only want to do it to each other (not that that is a good thing at all, but at least they aren't threatening to gas the world or what have you).

Has Saddam used weapons of mass destruction? Never. He has used poison gas, both on his own people and Iran, but again, that was while he was a U.S. ally and we didn't care in the slightest.

Umm...yes! Hello? Just what do you think using poison gas on people means? That's a type of chemical warfare, a chemical weapon of mass destruction.

I already explained the ally thing. First, this potential war is about a long string of atrocities by Hussein, both domestic and international. And diplomatic decisions can't be made in a bubble. By pigeonholing the U.S. for not doing anything about the gassing of the Kurds in the 1980s because of diplomatic relations, you naively ignore the consequences of doing otherwise.

I love how you'll point out all day how the U.S. doesn't take a certain action at one point, but you don't even talk about the context in which that decision had to be made. I mean, do you honestly believe there was a good choice to be made in that situation?

What if Iran's problems with Iraq went away because the U.S. decided to get real heavy with Hussein about the Kurds? And, as a result, the terrorists there get the funding and know-how together there to pull off 9/11 not in 2001, but in 1991? Or what if a rejuvenated Iran developed its own WMD and decided to attack Iraq, Turkey and Israel during the latter end of the Cold War, resulting in World War III (and the end of our civilization as we know it)?

I know it's hard to leave the bubble, but it's about time liberals found out there are consequences for every action. And every nonaction.

All of the participants in the First World War used poison gas, does that mean we can invade Britain and France, force them to disarm, and put their leaders in exile?

You might want to look up the results of something that happened in Geneva a few decades ago. You might discover that the atrocities by all sides in the first half of the twentieth century did not go unnoticed or ignored.

I notice how you only mention Britain and France in this quote, when Germany also had a big hand in this. Why is that? The only thing I can conclude is that since Britain and France were our allies, they are worthy of being pointed out, but Germany was our enemy, much as is Iraq currently, so they're okay, right?

I understand that your stance is anti-war and not anti-U.S., but when you say things like that (or ignore other key things), it really makes you come off like a biased rambler, rather than the objective and well-reasoned personage I assume you would rather be viewed as.

I'm sure you will tell me you just picked the firsttwo countries that came to mind, but doesn't that tell you there might even be underlying bias in your stance that you yourself are not completely investigating?

And, lastly, the leaders of Great Britain and France are no longer in control, and I assume, long since dead and buried. Hussein is very much alive and still in power. Unpunished acts of the past do not excuse the repeat of acts today. They were bad then, and they're bad now. Neither should go unpunished. One essentially did (on both sides). But to allow the other to go unpunished because we did not have the ability or will to do so the first time is to allow such evil to go on forever unpunished.

Or are you in favor of slavery going unpunished because it was done in the past? Or do you support rape because Nordic Vikings did it to thousands of medieval women in coastal towns throughout northern Europe with impunity? Or do you think it's okay now to spread biological weapons because we gave diseased blankets to native Americans during the 18th and 19th centuries?

Hell, Truman dropped atomic bombs on Japanese cities and the U.S. regularly flattened entire German and Japanese towns during WWII, killing untold numbers of civilians. Is the U.S. considered a rogue state and Harry Truman a murderous fanatic?

And Germany flattened British cities and marched millions of its own citizens, Jewish or no, into poison gas chambers. And the Japanese raped women throughout the Phillipines and China, and forced American POWs to suffer through the march to Bataan. And American soldiers wiped out whole Vietnamese villages. And 19 terrorists killed 3,000 Americans with jumbo jets.

Congratulations. That's why it's called war. It's humanity at its most evil. And that's why the need for it in this particular circumstance is appalling and frightening.

BTW, plenty of people don't agree with what Truman did, but I recommend you consider once again how things stand from a pros and cons situation. You know, that consequences of action or nonactions thing I was bugging you about before? Yeah, I know it's a real bummer when I keep throwing reality in your face.

If Saddam ever used the weapons we claim he has on us, of course we have a right to defend ourselves, but that has never happened. People seem to forget this in our rush to kill Saddam.

I do seem to recall that either we or Israel (or our forces in Israel) were the potential victims of SCUD attacks of doubtful chemical and biological composition.

The agreement at the end of the Persian Gulf War was a method of our defending ourselves. He has violated that agreement left and right. He is basically attacking our "defenses" right there.

So I would certainly call your quote into question as to whether one bit of it is factually true.

Iraq has never, repeat, never attacked the United States. They did attack Iran, with our blessing, and Kuwait, which they were punished for.

An attack on the U.S. military is an attack on the United States. Heck, it's not even just in the Persian Gulf War--they have also fired missiles at our bombers flying through the no-fly zones. Are you honestly contending here that Iraq means the U.S. no harm whatsoever? I mean, I know you're an idealist, but come on, no one is that naive.

I noticed you use the past tense for "punished". That is a factual fallacy. They are still being punished. If they were not being punished now, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

It is Hussein's violations of this punishment that has brought this situation upon him. If he showed any sign of moving away from the aggressive tendencies that caused him to invade Kuwait, Iraq might not still be being punished, but unfortunately, he has chosen to defy U.N. regulations and foil inspections, rather than abiding by them and possibly regaining the favor of the world community that would help his people so much.

My solution? Keep weapons inspectors in Iraq, permanently if need be, to keep him in check, if only to satisfy the United States and Britain. The U.N. should continue to pressure Iraq through diplomatic isolation. End the sanitations and don't go to war.

I assume you mean sanctions in that last sentence.

Anyway, I already went over this far up in this post. If Iraq knows we will not resort to economic sanctions or military action, what is the point of inspections or even diplomacy? What would we do if Iraq refused our diplomatic supplications, or continued to mislead inspectors all over the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys to no end? Or heck, what would we even do if Iraq screwed up and we actually found something? It seems that, in your world, we would still do nothing. So what's the point?

Without the threat of economic sanctions or military action, diplomacy and inspections have no point. Where there is no punishment, there is no check against the crime that punishment was designed to inhibit.

And, indeed, to remove the sanctions, not go to war if warranted, or refuse to take some other hardline stance, is to send a message to the world's dictators, both now and in the future, that the United Nations and even the United States is powerless and pointless. That both international crimes and domestic genocide can and will go unpunished. That if you're willing to allow your people to suffer for more than a decade and can play the intenrational community off on one another to avoid direct attention, you can get away with murder.

I would be very shocked if Iraq ever attacked the United States and it is a historical certainty that Saddam will be overthrown at some point in the not too distant future.

Once again, Iraq has already attacked the United States. And I have already shown that your ridiculous assertion that his overthrow is a (LMAO) "historical certainty" is patently false. There's a good chance it won't ever happen at all. The likelihood that this coup-d'etat might occur "in the not too distanct future", as you say, is even smaller by a good amrgin, I would imagine.

If we go to war, a U.S. client regime will be installed, probably very similar to Saudi Arabia, and it will be used by Islamic fundamentalists as another reason to hate the United States, thus impressing another generation of terrorists.

But a U.S. client regime won't be building a program for WMD that might be used on the U.S. or Israel or any other country, would it?

But that's beside the point. I have already shown that any and all governments do bad things. This will be the same for whatever government we set up. This would be the same if we didn't do a thing, and your unlikely situation of an overthrow of Hussein occurred. That new government would also do bad things. And then the U.S. would get blamed for NOT going in. It's a los-lose situation.

Here's a world lesson for ya. The people who hate us will bear sons who hate us. And they will bear sons who hate us. And so forth. It takes decades, even centuries, even millenia to heal wounds like these. I assure you, no matter what happens in Iraq, terrorists aplently will find enough reasons to hate us. You see, haters don't need to come up with a reason. They just hate--and then they find a way to justify doing so.

Nothing we do in Iraq will change that.

I have yet to hear one argument FOR going to war that rang true with me.

And I have yet to hear one argument AGAINST going to war that sounded true to me. So there. What on Earth could how these things resonate with you or me personally have to do with this discussion?

Chief Rum

[HornedFrog Purple]

Yes. But you are aware of the non-violent revolution which took place in the Soviet Union in 1989, ending communism in that country, correct? It may have taken a long time, but it did happen.

That is far far from the truth. I would suggest reading some material on Gorbachov and exactly how he came to power. A good resource is Lenin's Tomb by David Remnick. It goes into great detail with documented evidence of how exactly this came about. Gorbachov was no saint in all of this.

So, kind of like Guatemala, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran, East Germany, the U.S.S.R., all of the baltic states, Chile, China, Angola, Ethiopia, Yemen, etc? All of these countries have had revolutions during the 20'th century, none of which had the requirements you claim. It is a historical fact that all governments are overthrown eventually.

Of all those listed can you name the ones completely interior with no foreign assistance? Almost any revolution requires direct or indirect outside/foreign influence.

Was that the aim? If so, it wasn't very well thought out. The consequence was quite predictable. If anything, it has tightened Saddam's grip on the country because the people blame the United States for their starvation, lack of adequate medical supplies, etc. Whether this is valid or not is an entirely seperate debate. Add to this the carpet bombing of Baghdad during the Gulf War and I would be surprised if the Iraqi people didn't hate us.

Well it was not our aim, it was the UN. In fact everything done to this point has been through UN guidelines. The idea that Iraq is blaming the US for everything is more of a case of internal propaganda. It makes more sense to blame us than say Kenya. If the US is so bloodthirsty for war and making everyone heed to our iron boot why are we even bothering to go through the UN?

If the idea is just to wait and see, leave Iraq alone they will figure it out, do you honestly think another Kuwait isnt on the horizon? History shows that is the case, why not attempt steps to prevent this.

How much have you heard from Libya lately?

[HornedFrog Purple]

Wow you must have set Chief off, he went into small-novel mode.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
Define nothing. Nothing as in status quo? Nothing as in remove sanctions? You mispell it later, but my impression is that you want to remove sanctions from Iraq. This is actually not doing "nothing".

Nothing as in not going to war. I guess removing sanctions would be considered something, but I doubt either one of us wants to get heavily in to semantics when we both know what each of us mean. Oh, and you misspelled misspell.

Let me tell you what nothing means here then. Nothing means the only punishment Iraq receives for attacking Kuwait is inspections. Your "nothing" would even have us removing the no-fly zones, allow Iraq to maintain the large military forces that it used to invade Kuwait, and allow them to pursue WMD to their heart's content. The inspectors are being misled by the nose, so the one thing you allow within the country is pointless.

You mean besides the sanctions which have lasted for over a decade and have devastated the country? How long do we need to bleed Iraq before their punishment ends?

In fact, I don't even know why if you feel this way that you accept inspections there. After all, what are we going to do if we find something? Sanctions? Oops, no, that's against the liberal system of doing things. Go to war or bomb the sights? Nope, that sounds an awful lot like aggressive acts of war--can't do that, says the liberal.

Keep in mind that the only thing they have found thus far are empty warheads. I thought we were talking about what should be done right now, this minute, not what we would do if such and such happened.

In fact, your way of doing things essentially lets anyone do whatever they want and invalidates the United Nations altogether.

Huh? How in the hell do you gather that from what I said?

The problem is that leaders aren't just making decisions that affect their own people. They are also making decisions that affect other people, such as the people of Kuwait. Or the people of Israel. Or the people killed by the terrorists raised in camps in Iraqi territory. Or the people killed by Palestinian bombers--including the bombers themselves--because of the promise of a cash payment to their loved ones from Iraq.

Or the Palestinians who are killed by missiles paid for by the United States. Or the people of East Timor who suffered virtual genocide at the hand of a regime who's military was funded and trained by the United States. It cuts both ways.

Iraq signed on as a member of the U.N. and then its leader chose to violate the precepts of the international agreements which form the basis for the U.N. by invading Kuwait.

Did I disagree with this? The United States was condemned by the World Court for its actions regarding Nicaragua in the 1980's, Israel has repeatedly been denounced by the U.N. for its continued occupation of the occupied territories. Should the U.N. bomb Tel Aviv and Washington? Why the double standard?

Hussein has done nothing but dance from one foot to the other diplomatically, developing WMDs on one hand while misleading inspectors with the others.

Evidence that Hussein is developing WMD's please...

At this point, it would seem clear that this leader cannot be trusted with decisions which impact the lives of millions, even billions, outside of his own realm of control. Indeed, it seems clear that he in fact desires nothing but ill will to most of the international community, and in particular Western nations.

I do not doubt that he bears nothing but ill will to western nations, but will he act on it? I am sure you will say that he will, but do you know this or are you just making an educated guess?

It has also been demonstrated that dictatorships can stand the test of time as well. Ever heard of Stalin? He ruled for 30 years and was responsible for his own genocidal camps, but when he died, the Soviet Union was stable as it had ever been..... If I can find even one lengthy reign in contrary to your point, that validates the whole thing.

I cut off the ad hominid. Did I say that it will happen tomorrow? Did I say it will happen within 10 years? 20? 30? 40? Nope. But it will happen. I don't see how that disproves my point in any way, shape, or form. If I had stated, "all regimes are overthrown within 25 years", that would clearly be false. All I said was that all governments are removed from power. That is so obvious as to be axiomatic.

I would ask again (restating the original poster's question), what is your solution to Saddam if you're wrong about his "inevitable" removal from power?

Well, it is inevitable that Saddam will be removed from power. He will die at some point right? Once again, I don't see why we have this pressing need to remove him. I object to the very premise of the question, I am not refusing to answer it.

If we shouldn't interfere with the treatment of his own people, why should we even pressure him diplomatically?

You see no difference between material interference and diplomatic pressure?

I would love to know just how diplomacy would work without the possibility of further and more serious actions.

I didn't say that there should not be further and more serious actions in any case, just that I don't see why they are warranted in this case.

But the fact of the matter is that the U.S. and the U.N. (with the U.S.) have the power to stop things like genocide. And the origins of pretty much every major religion (including Islam) state that genocide is wrong, and allowing genocide to happen when we have the power to stop it is as bad as being the killers ourselves.

I didn't realize that Saddam was being accused of genocide. I figured I would have read about this in the paper at some point.

I can't always say I have been happy with the U.S.'s willingness to intervene in the business of other countries either. I didn't like the situation with Nicaragua or Grenada or countless other forays into international politics.

Ah, here comes the conservative hypocrisy. You state that you didn't like our forays, but leave it at that. You are aware that the United States mined Nicaragua’s harbors, trained and funded the Contras who's admitted strategy was the willful murder of civilians in order to erode popular support for the government of Nicaragua, and illegally engaged in an embargo without U.N. approval, and was, in fact, condemned by the World Court for these actions? Saddam invaded a small, defenseless country in Kuwait. The United States invaded a small, defenseless country in Grenada. But that is okay, no problem, whereas Saddam's actions make him the anti-Christ. Maybe it is just me, but I fail to see the distinction between the two.

What would you have the U.S. do back then?

Omitting the arguments for an against supporting Iraq in the interest of space. What would I have us do? Support neither one. Why did we have to choose between supporting Iran and Iraq?

If you're looking for a good and honest country to support, keep dreaming, buddy, because one has never existed. Not here in the U.S. and not in Iraq. Or in Great Britain. Or the Great Dissenters, France and Germany. Or the gung-ho Israelis, or the nuke-developing North Koreans. Or the regrouping Russians, or Big red China.
There's nothing sadder than an idealist in a practical world.

What? Ok, I guess I can't criticize any countries actions because, hey, nobody is perfect. So Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate a bunch of people. Hey, if you are looking for a good and honest person to support, keep dreaming buddy. Nothing is sadder than an idealist in a practical world.

Imagine 9/11, only losing ten, a hundred, or a thousand times as many lives. Imagine the use of such dipping the world into a catastrophic nuclear war, the ultimate irony?

Yup, that would be horrific. The point is that you, me, GW, the U.N, nor anyone else has any idea if Saddam would do this. You assume that he would. I assume that he wouldn't. You would attack a country based on an assumption? Personally, I find it hard to believe that Saddam would attack the U.S. with a nuclear weapon. Why? Simple, Saddam is interested in Saddam. What would happen if he nuked us? We would blow him off the fucking map. What possible principle would compel him to do something which he knew would mean his end? Oh, I forgot, I'm an idealist and non-practical. Will have to stop thinking along such lines.

What if Iran's problems with Iraq went away because the U.S. decided to get real heavy with Hussein about the Kurds? And, as a result, the terrorists there get the funding and know-how together there to pull off 9/11 not in 2001, but in 1991? Or what if a rejuvenated Iran developed its own WMD and decided to attack Iraq, Turkey and Israel during the latter end of the Cold War, resulting in World War III (and the end of our civilization as we know it)?

I know it's hard to leave the bubble, but it's about time liberals found out there are consequences for every action. And every nonaction.

And what if Vladamir Putin decided that he was offended by George Bush not asking his permission to attack Iraq and nuked us all? And what if Ariel Sharon decided that our military aid was not high enough and decided to launch a full scale attack on Palestine, knowing full well that Syria and Iraq would join in the fray and attack Israel, forcing us to increase our aid? And what if India was taken over by Martians from outer space bent on controlling the human race...what if what if what if.

I notice how you only mention Britain and France in this quote, when Germany also had a big hand in this. Why is that? The only thing I can conclude is that since Britain and France were our allies, they are worthy of being pointed out, but Germany was our enemy, much as is Iraq currently, so they're okay, right?
....
I'm sure you will tell me you just picked the firsttwo countries that came to mind, but doesn't that tell you there might even be underlying bias in your stance that you yourself are not completely investigating?

Actually, they WERE the first two countries to pop in to my head, which is logical when you consider their geographic positions. I guess if we wanted to get Freudian we could consider my "underlying bias" but I think you are making much adieu about nothing.

I understand that your stance is anti-war and not anti-U.S., but when you say things like that (or ignore other key things), it really makes you come off like a biased rambler, rather than the objective and well-reasoned personage I assume you would rather be viewed as.

I could say the same thing about you. Everyone has bias. No one is objective.

And Germany flattened British cities and marched millions of its own citizens, Jewish or no, into poison gas chambers. And the Japanese raped women throughout the Philippines and China, and forced American POWs to suffer through the march to Bataan. And American soldiers wiped out whole Vietnamese villages. And 19 terrorists killed 3,000 Americans with jumbo jets.

Congratulations. That's why it's called war. It's humanity at its most evil. And that's why the need for it in this particular circumstance is appalling and frightening.

Yup. And Germany was wiped out by allied armies. And Japan was wiped out by allied armies. And Afghanistan was attacked for harboring Al-Qauda. And the United States? Errr, well, ehhhhh......

So what did Iraq do comparing to this level of atrocity?

BTW, plenty of people don't agree with what Truman did, but I recommend you consider once again how things stand from a pros and cons situation. You know, that consequences of action or nonactions thing I was bugging you about before? Yeah, I know it's a real bummer when I keep throwing reality in your face.

You assume that I haven't? Regardless of the consequences of action or non-action, the United States remains the only country who has ever used a nuclear weapon. I know it's a real bummer to throw that reality in your face.

I do seem to recall that either we or Israel (or our forces in Israel) were the potential victims of SCUD attacks of doubtful chemical and biological composition.

An attack on the U.S. military is an attack on the United States. Heck, it's not even just in the Persian Gulf War--they have also fired missiles at our bombers flying through the no-fly zones. Are you honestly contending here that Iraq means the U.S. no harm whatsoever? I mean, I know you're an idealist, but come on, no one is that naive.

One could argue that we attacked Iraq and they defended themselves from our attack. Do I believe that? No. But I can't think of a single country which would not shoot back at soldiers who were attacking their troops or sending fighter jets on sorties in their own country, U.N. authorization or no. I guess I should rephrase the comment so as not to fall victim to semantics again. Iraq has never attacked United States troops or territory without being fired upon or encroached upon prior to their attack. Better? As to whether Iraq bears the U.S. ill will, what the hell does that have to do with anything? I have no doubt that Saddam and a good portion of Iraqis hate our fucking guts. So what?

The agreement at the end of the Persian Gulf War was a method of our defending ourselves. He has violated that agreement left and right. He is basically attacking our "defenses" right there.

And I am out of touch with reality?

I noticed you use the past tense for "punished". That is a factual fallacy. They are still being punished. If they were not being punished now, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

Ok, first with semantics and now with tenses. Ok, I should have said are being punished. Feel better?

I apologize for the tone I used above, but you went hog wild with the personal digs in your reply to my post. I was stating my opinion while you were educating me on properly viewing reality rather than being a naive idealist. You can take that and stick it. I'm not an idiot, I'm not ignorant, and I am likely just as well read and informed as you are. Didn't you admonish me yesterday for criticizing Fritz for what I perceived as his air of superiority? You stated, IIRC, that I was confusing my disagreement with him for "active dislike." I actually like Fritz. You, after this display, I can do without. You can disagree with me all you like and we can be as tight as a virgin, but don't talk down to me.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
Wow you must have set Chief off, he went into small-novel mode.

Was it something I said?

[astralhaze]

I suppose I will be called gutless and a hypocrite for failing to defend my statements, but I am going to duck out of this thread at this point. The only thing which will come of it now would be a flame war and I don't want to involve myself any further in that than I already have. I guess I will let Rum get the parting shot on me and call it good.

[albionmoonlight]

Sometimes you let bad things happen in order to prevent worse things from happening. A quick example--Congress had passed a law making it a crime to possess a gun within X feet of a school (this example works on the assumption that keeping guns out of schools is a good thing. If you don't agree with that--that's an issue for another thread). Someone was charged under that law and challenged it saying that Congress did not have the right to make the law. The Supreme Court agreed. Even though in that case the law that Congress passed was a "good" one--the Court decided that letting Congress have more power than the Constitution granted them in any one instance would never be worth the potential future cost. One day Congress would pass a law outside of their authority that was not clearly good--and we would have no moral authority to stop them.

All of which is a long way of saying that there is a reason to not invade Iraq if the international community does not agree to go along. We do not want to set the precedent of "whoever has the biggest army can decide what is right for the world." Even though in this instance we are RIGHT and Saddam does deserve to be deposed, sometimes you let a wrong thing happen to prevent a worse thing in the future. One day, America will not be the biggest dog in the fight--by that point, I hope we will have set an example of international leadership that won't encourage others to invade us just because they can.

Also--I think that we will get everyone to agree before we invade. We will know soon either way.

[Tarkus]

If this is truly the liberal view all I can say is thank G-d for one of two things. That the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor during WWII or that if they hadn't that a flaming liberal weren't running the country. If not for one those two things it appears we all could now be living under the Nazi regime and I would most likely be dead or never born. But hey, it wouldn't have been our problem. Those Germans would have overthrown Hitler themselves at some point. Yeah, I'm sure that's what would have happened as the US sat on their collective asses saying it was none of their problem (of course we actually did do that for a while). Never mind.

Tarkus

[albionmoonlight]

Hitler invaded other countries. When Iraq invaded another country, we went in to liberate that country. It is a jump to say that those who are against unilaterally attacking Iraq because it is a "bad" country would also have been opposed to attacking Hitler because he invaded other nations. I'm sure there are some people who are against war with Iraq who would have also been against WWII. But please don't assume that this situation is so similar to WWII that everyone who is against unilaterally attacking Iraq without international support would not have entered WWII.

[CamEdwards]

I realize that astralhaze has backed out of the debate at this point... but I just had to mention a few things.

1-Japan and Germany seem to be doing pretty well for countries that we "wiped out" in WWII. Of course, much of their success is due to the fact that we tend to help rebuild the countries we wage war with, once we've eliminated the problem.

2-Saddam Hussein IS guilty of genocide, and I'm surprised that someone as well read as astralhaze doesn't remember the 1.5 million Kurds that Hussein has killed.

3-And this is where it gets personal (sorry, but I just got off the air and I'm still in talk show host mode). Astralhaze, you ninny, the sanctions against Iraq will end when Iraq wants them to. The burden of proof is on Iraq... NOT the United States. It's up to Iraq to say "here's the proof we've disarmed", not us to say "Here's the proof they haven't". Hans Blix says Iraq is continue to mislead and deceive. He says they're not being honest. Now let me ask you this... if they're NOT in violation of Resolution 1441, why would they be acting this way?? Their pattern of deception and misinformation indicates they're in material breach, and the discovery of those warheads proves it. Blix has said the Iraqi's are in material breach. The only thing up for debate now is whether or not the UN has strength behind it's words, or if the US will once again have to go in with a coalition of allies to the UN's work for it.

[Alf]

Japan and Germany are doing good because they were banned to build/use massive destructive weapons after WWII. So they saved tons of money by not investing in military weapons. That might not be the sole reason, but that surely helped.

And to disagree with CamEdwards : You are innocent until you are proven guilty ! Not the contrary ! For a country which puts a lot of emphasis on laws, I thought you already knew that !

[Bee]

Originally posted by Alf

And to disagree with CamEdwards : You are innocent until you are proven guilty ! Not the contrary ! For a country which puts a lot of emphasis on laws, I thought you already knew that !

Are you in favor of applying American principles to the rest of the world all the time, or just in this case?

And by the way, there appears to be quite a bit of evidence that suggests Iraq is guilty and if this were a trial in the US, I'm sure they would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Dutch]

Hey Liberals,

Do nothing. That is not liberal, that is apathetic.

Get it right.

Late!

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Alf
Japan and Germany are doing good because they were banned to build/use massive destructive weapons after WWII. So they saved tons of money by not investing in military weapons. That might not be the sole reason, but that surely helped.

And to disagree with CamEdwards : You are innocent until you are proven guilty ! Not the contrary ! For a country which puts a lot of emphasis on laws, I thought you already knew that !

Japan and Germany are doing well because they were banned to build and use weapons of mass destruction after WWII. Not exactly, but close. And btw, Iraq has also been banned from doing the same thing. Only problem is, they haven't complied. And don't discount the amount of money the US and other Allied nations poured into Japan and Germany to help rebuild their countries.

You can disagree with me all you want, but that doesn't make you any less wrong. This is not a criminal trial in a U.S. court of law. This is a UN resolution, and if you had read the resolution, you surely wouldn't have posted such a misinformed statement. Iraq has ALREADY been declared in material breach by the UN. Resolution 1441 simply gave them one final chance to comply, and the evidence presented by Colin Powell today shows they have not. Iraq has produced no such evidence to prove they HAVE complied, because they cannot.

I'll keep my temper in check and end this post now... I'd hate to start a flame war with a fellow regular.

[Chief Rum]

Well, well, astralhaze. If you can't win, you denigrate my writing style and then run, eh? That's a shame because I thought better of you.

First of all, you're not stupid. Try and find that reference anywhere in my post.

And you're not ignorant, either--you seem to be quite knowledgeable about things. My gripe on that issue is that you fail to follow logical, rational thought and evidentiary rules when you present your arguments.

I realize you are just as learned as I am, maybe more so. But, once again, that is irrelevant.

The fact is that you construct spurrious arguments and ignore evidence to the contrary. You argue about "Iraq right now" instead of "Iraq now and in the future", when you know the latter is what's important. You throw out irrelevant circumstances like Nicaragua or Truman or Britain/France, because you fail to acknowledge that on the basis of the Iraq situation by itself, your viewpoint isn't so supportable.

You argue about my use of semantics at points to tear apart your arguments, but the fact of the matter is that you are unclear on many points, and the distinction is important. For example, the distinction that Iraq was punished or is currently being punished is critical. Can't you see that if we weren't still punishing Iraq--sanctions, inspections--that we wouldn't be railling at them for violating that punishment? If there is punishment to violate, there are no violations, no? But there is punishment.

I don't know whether a slip of the keyboard or a poorly-placed turn of phrase is actually just that or an indication of further miscomprehension of the facts. I'm sorry if you're frustrated that you have gotten into a fight with someone who will pick at you for the words you choose to communicate with, but this is how we're communicating. If your meaning isn't clear, it takes away from your entire position.

I never called you stupid or ignorant, and I believe you are as intelligent and capable as me.

What I said about you was that I think you are naive and an idealist living in a practical world. I also think you are careless with your use of the evidence and with logic and with spurrious arguments when you get into it with someone.

If this is the "flame war" you fear, so be it. They are mere suppositions of mine made solely on your posting, the only evidence I have from which to draw conclusions.

The Internet, as has been stated, is an imperfect forum for communications. I bear you no ill will, nor do I think less of you in any way. I just wish you did things differently in argumentative style. If you are under the assumption that I feel "superior" to you or don't like you or what have you, you are mistaken.

I'm sorry if my choice of words led you to that conclusion, but as I told you with Fritz the other day, I think you might be extending your own dislike onto me and seeing things in my words that I did not say. This is especially apparent now that you have done it twice in three days.

So please don't make assumptions that I will come back to ignite a flame war or rip to pieces, because that is frankly a miscarriage of truth. I am here to argue the points, not to fight with you. And the fact that you assume I would do otherwise really says everything that needs to be said about what you feel about me personally.

So my apologies if I gave the wrong impression, that you would hate me so.

Chief Rum

[detroit_fan]

Reading the responses on this thread is like reading War and Peace...

[Leonidas]

Guys

I have to correct astralhaze when he says Iraq using chemical weapons is not a use of weapons of mass destruction.

According to the Geneva Convention, and official U.S. policy, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (NBC) are considered to be weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Chemical and biological weapons are outlawed by the Geneva Convention, the UN, and various other weapon proliferation agreements the world over. The use of chems on Iran and the Kurds in his own country are enough to bring Hussein up on crimes against humanity.

This type of thing is my business. I am now awaiting orders to go battle the forces of darkness in Persia any day so I at least have a clue as to what I am talking about.

Whether I agree or disagree with this policy is irrelevant and not subject to public discussion. But I took an oath and have a duty to perform for my country and my Commander in Chief. Saddam Hussein has violated international law on numerous occassions and has shown no hesitance to use his own WMDs even against his own citizens. This is not my opinion or viewpoint. Those are simple facts, accurate and true. Take it for what you will.

FYI
Ironic that this may be, but international law and the Geneva Convention do not consider nuclear weapons illegal, unless you have signed on to one of those nuclear proliferation treaties and you did not already have nukes when you signed the treaty.

[Gwalyn]

Man it is a good thing I am not in the military. I have quite a few radical ideas and to fight for something that I don't whole heartedly believe in would be extremely difficult for me to risk my life for unless of course I am really into facing danger and enjoy the feeling of incredible doses of adrenlin and fighting the survival instinct.

Oh hell since we are discussing the topic, do people think the balance of power is being threatened by Iraq? What are the potential global consequences of entering into a massive military operation in the Middle East? Are we prepared for a major war if other Middle Eastern countries enter into the mix? What about other world States that may side against our actions? Will removing a leader solve any long term problems? Or create more? What are the plans if we do prevail in dethroning Sadaam? Will these plans be accepted by the people in Iraq? The rest of the Middle East? The rest of the World? Are we prepared to make Sadaam a martyr?

These are just a few of the many questions that I feel should be answered. I will admit I am fairly ignorant on the whole issue so I am reluctant to give my opinions on the matter, but I will say that in order for MYSELF to make a sound choice on the matter requires these and many other questions to be answered.

I haven't spoken with people at length on the issue but I have noticed many people treat the issue very emotionally and with a closed mind which I feel is the wrong way to approach something of this nature. Whether or not we go into action the issue needs to be looked at from afar to see what consequences may arise not only from inside Iraq, but from areas outside of Iraq as well.

[kcchief19]

Personally I don't label myself as a "liberal," although I'm sure others would prodly label themselves conservative would disagree. But I'll take a whack at the original question.

I believe that Iraq is likely in violation of of UN resolutions and those resolutions call for the use of force if Iraq is found in violation. However, the political reality is that while we may have "legal" justification for going into Iraq, that does not mean we should at this time.

In my book, there are two criteria that must be met before an invasion of Iraq should begin:
1) The presence of an overwhelming invasion force similar to that built for the '91 Gulf War. That force numbered more than 500,000. Presently, we have approximately 110,000 with apparent plans to go as high as 200,000. Frankly, I'm not convinced that is enough to do the job. Our invasion of Afghanistan was a miscalculation because we were not ready. We did not have enough troops in the region to contain Bin Laden and the Taliban, and as a result many of our primary targets escaped our grasp. Overwhelming force will be an even greater requirement in this case, since we allege that Iraq has a certain level of weaponry. If we do not contain the Iraq military, it will be easy for Hussein to slip weapons out of the country.

2) We must have a strong international coalition. Like it or not, the U.S. is perceived in many parts of the world as an overbearing father at best and a playground bully at worst. Going into Iraq alone will only invite attacks on Americans here and abroad. And not that many people will care if it is the U.S. and Britain acting alone.

There are a lot of other considerations to be made as well, but those are two big ones. I am still concerned about Israel. If we attack Iraq, you can bet that Hussein will launch strikes against Israel. If those happen to be chemical attacks and there is significant loss of life in Israel, will that country stand by and let us fight for them? Or will they launch their own strikes? If they do, it could very well open a larger conflict in the region. As I have said before. Like I've said before, look at a map. Any military action by Israel will mean encroaching on the territory of a neighbor. And Israel has no friendly neighbors.

I have to admit that from a political perspective, there a few things that really get my goat. The argument that we should go into Iraq because Hussein is a genocidal dictator pisses me off royally. Why? Because he is only one of a group of homicidal dictators around the globe. If "conservatives" are opposed to genocide, why did so many oppose Clinton's efforts in Yugoslavia and Rwanda? Are you committed to sending U.S. troops to rid the world of genocide elsewhere? That's a pretty big committment.

I also am unable to forget the role that Reagan and the elder Bush played in building Hussein into what he is. Many of these problems we are now tackling where built with what may go down in history as the most atrocious foreign policy decisions in U.S. history.

I don't believe that we should politicize Iraq. It shouldn't be about liberals or conservatives. It should be about right and wrong. And it should be about the right way and the wrong way.