Iraq ~ Let's break down the pros and cons of going into Iraq

[Angel Heart]

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/iraq_war.htm

Should We Use Military Force to Unseat Saddam Hussein's Government?


In a Nutshell

Yes

1. Saddam's human rights record is among the worst in the world and in history.
2. Saddam is a major threat to stability of the Middle East.
3. Saddam is connected with terrorists and may supply them with weapons of mass destruction.
4. It would send a forceful message to other dictators and would-be state sponsors of terrorism.
5. A model democracy could be set up in the Arab world, possibly leading other Arab governments to follow suit.
6. Oil prices could dramatically drop with a short, successful campaign.
7. We can remove our troops from Saudi Arabia and much of the Arab world if he's gone.
8. We would have Iran and Syria, perhaps the biggest terrorist sponsors, surrounded by U.S.-friendly governments.
9. Most Arab governments want Saddam gone; the public opinion backlash may not be as great as portrayed in the media.
10. Saddam continues to fire on U.S. and British planes enforcing U.N. no-fly zones.
11. Saddam refuses to return the booty he stole from Kuwait during the Gulf War or account for hundreds of prisoners.
12. The cost in lives and dollars of containment is higher than that of war.
13. The credibility of President Bush and the U.S. is at stake.
14. Saddam deserves to be punished for the death & misery he's caused to the world.
15. The credibility and relevancy of the U.N. is on the line.

No

1. A true Sunni-Shiite civil war could ensue, resulting in ten times the current bloodshed.
2. The longer we stay, the more time Iraqi politicians have to work out government structure differences, and the more time Iraqi troops & police have to train.
3. We may have to re-invade if we don't stabilize the country since it could become a terrorist haven or could bring to power another Saddam.
4. The bloodshed currently confined to Iraq could spread to neighboring countries, resulting in not just an Iraqi civil war, but a Sunni-Shiite regional civil war.
5. It gives the U.S. military a chance to hunt down and kill terrorists.
6. It would give Al Qaeda a symbolic victory and become the basis of future recruiting propaganda.
7. It would invite similar terrorist/guerilla tactics in future wars since the tactics resulted in a victory that a conventional military couldn't achieve over the U.S. military.
8. As long as we stay, Iran (the leading terrorist-sponsor state) will face the pressure of being surrounded by American troops, and Iraq will provide another launching base if we're forced to invade.
9. It's giving American troops valuable guerilla-war training that may be useful if the U.S. must engage terrorists in other hot spots around the world.
10. If we withdraw, the terrorists currently fighting American troops will likely be dispersed to civilian Western targets.
11. Iraqis who have supported and helped Americans could face death or torture.
12. American troops remain in the heart of the terrorist breeding ground, the Middle East, and can thus be easily deployed to Syria, Iran, etc. if the need arises.
13. Iraqi civilians may fear retribution once American troops leave and will therefore be unwilling to help us further in our battle against terrorist insurgents.
14. Oil prices could skyrocket if Iraq becomes more unstable, leading to $5/gallon gas prices and a major recession of the world economy.

 

[manu1959]

well then.....should we have gone or not?

i say no we should not have gone...

 

[Angel Heart]

How much of that no list has come true? A lot. Hind sight is 20/20.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

8,9, and 12 under the "No" column seem to fit better under the "Yes" column.

 

[Angel Heart]

I agree.

 

[jodylee]

now that so many american's have seen what a mistake going into iraq was, you can probably now understand why the rest of the world thinks your all idiots.

 

[manu1959]

now that so many american's have seen what a mistake going into iraq was, you can probably now understand why the rest of the world thinks your all idiots.

what perfect country with only smart people do you live in?

 

[jodylee]

defend by attack, you know its true.

 

[manu1959]

defend by attack, you know its true.

your country not worth defending huh?....thought so

 

[jodylee]

your country not worth defending huh?....thought so

no i mean YOU defend by attack, there was no defending going on when you attacked Iraq. And yes my country was also involved with the whole thing but the people of my country didn't want the war and voted in large numbers against the government to protest. Opposed to the U.S. who voted bush back in, thus supporting the war.

 

[Truthmatters]

Im glad you now relise it was a mistake manu

 

[Bern80]

Im glad you now relise it was a mistake manu

It was a mistake in hindsight, yes. But again only in hindsight, something many people seem to conveniently forget. A majority of congress voted to invade because they felt Saddam was a real threat. Now many of those same congress people are attempting to do the same thing that members of this board are doing, by condemning an action they supported in the first place.

 

[Ruby]

It was a mistake in hindsight, yes. But again only in hindsight, something many people seem to conveniently forget. A majority of congress voted to invade because they felt Saddam was a real threat. Now many of those same congress people are attempting to do the same thing that members of this board are doing, by condemning an action they supported in the first place.

Well the rest of the world was pretty vocal about not agreeing with an invasion BEFORE we invaded. I remember people really wanted to lambaste France and Germany for not approving.

There were also plenty of us american citizens who were against the invasion from the very beginning, as I was. There was never one single second I supported doing such a vile thing.

 

[Bern80]

Well the rest of the world was pretty vocal about not agreeing with an invasion BEFORE we invaded. I remember people really wanted to lambaste France and Germany for not approving.

There were also plenty of us american citizens who were against the invasion from the very beginning, as I was. There was never one single second I supported doing such a vile thing.

Vile thing? Try to put your head around the time before we invaded, not knowing what we know now. Are purpose was two fold. Remove a tyrant from power and remove WMDs. What 'vile' thing are you speaking of?

 

[Ruby]

Vile thing? Try to put your head around the time before we invaded, not knowing what we know now. Are purpose was two fold. Remove a tyrant from power and remove WMDs. What 'vile' thing are you speaking of?

I remember it quite well. It was vile to invade a nation and bring war to them. There were no WMD's and there were inspectors IN Iraq and they were coming up empty, no need to bomb people (which is vile).

Saddam was a dicator we should have never supported (and we did for years) but it is for Iraqis to change if they chose to. They have a right to sort their own govt, just as all nations do.

It is vile to engage in aggressive wars against nations and bring them death and destruction. That is exactly what war is and what war does and should be an absolute last resort and for self defense, neither were the case.

 

[Bern80]

I remember it quite well. It was vile to invade a nation and bring war to them. There were no WMD's and there were inspectors IN Iraq and they were coming up empty, no need to bomb people (which is vile).

Saddam was a dicator we should have never supported (and we did for years) but it is for Iraqis to change if they chose to. They have a right to sort their own govt, just as all nations do.

It is vile to engage in aggressive wars against nations and bring them death and destruction. That is exactly what war is and what war does and should be an absolute last resort and for self defense, neither were the case.

We didn't attack Iraq. We attacked it's leader. And of course you're correct taht it would have been in a snap for those under his boot to rise up against him. Wonder why they never tried it before. Oh yeah, cause last time they tried they go mustard bombed.

Our army didn't go around and bomb innocent people either. I'm not sure what evidence you have for that claim.

 

[DeadCanDance]

well then.....should we have gone or not?

i say no we should not have gone...

Thank you. I give you props for this admission.

I think its patently obvious that invading Iraq was a mistake of historic proportions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thank you. I give you props for this admission.

I think its patently obvious that invading Iraq was a mistake of historic proportions.

We are past that. It has no bearing on whether we should stay or not. The issue of whether we should have invaded became meaningless the second we DID invade. Right or wrong, the US created a situation in Iraq and now has a responsibility to ensure the Country has a functioning Government and military and police before we leave.

 

[Truthmatters]

The sunlight is begining to shine in.

How about we drawn down and let the UN step in and it will take the pressure off the Iraqi people feeling its just us against them.

It will show the Iraqi people a united world is there to help them secure their country instead of fearing its just one countries attempt to control them.

It will stop some of the violence right up front.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The sunlight is begining to shine in.

How about we drawn down and let the UN step in and it will take the pressure off the Iraqi people feeling its just us against them.

It will show the Iraqi people a united world is there to help them secure their country instead of fearing its just one countries attempt to control them.

It will stop some of the violence right up front.

Really? The UN is going to provide combat troops and police? From where? And where was I when the offer was made?