I am curious guys, and thought I would put out an unscientific poll for us fellow Outsporters. I want to know do you think we should go to war against Iraq? Curious to hear your comments...
Personally I am leaning somewhat against at the moment. Mainly because US meaning U.S. taxpayers will have to foot the bill, esp. if we go it alone.

I also beleive there are some issues in our country that need to be addressed first, before any Iraqi considerations. One example: the medicare prescription coverage bill went down to defeat again today in Congress. I hope the voters hold each and every member who voted against this personally responsible.

no.

I doubt the US will go to war to oust Saddam Hussein, though efforts will be made to approach/support his opposition within Iraq in vain hopes that they are able to topple him. This will probably fail miserably--Hussein has tremendous support in the military & should be able to defeat all internal oppoisition (executions will follow.) The ability of the US to overthrow unpopular regimes is grossly overrated--remember that the US attempted an overthrow in South America just a couple of months back and failed. The Bush Administration wound up looking silly when they tried to deny their involvement.

If the UN does some serious saber rattling (don't count on it) Hussein should allow some more arms inspections, limited though they'll be.

~Adam

Nope. Not now. We have no--NO--allies on this. We would have to commit ground troops to win this war completely. We would have to build a new "nation" from the ground up. We're already doing that in Afghanistan. I know W. wants the oil but this is ridiculous. We'd have to police the whole damned joint for a decade to keep the Iranians out. We'd destroy all possibility of decent relations with most Arab nations, and whip the wacko elements in that world--including those on the Al Qaeda fence--into the worst frenzy. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are two powderkegs we really do not want to explode simultaneously right now.

Also, we are running a deficit that is steadily growing, and this "wag the dog" stunt would only make things worse. Bush should can Paul O'Neill and his entire economic team, bring in some people who know what they're doing, and improve his fortunes that way. Also, we should demand Iraq allow inspectors, give them an ultimatum, and build consensus with the Arab countries FIRST. Or at least show some real proof that Saddam is up to the heinous activities we're claiming for him. We do not want to run blindly into this one.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

I hope we do not at this point and time. We have enough on our plates with Afganistan, and trying to keep Israel and the Palestinian Authority from each other necks, that we do not need another conflict to break out in this area. As it was said in previous posts, we would not have an one elses help in this one, we would go it alone, unlike the Gulf War, were most of the Middle East was with us. Since we have the No Fly Zones in Iraq, and keep bombing military items that could help Iraq with another invasion of another country, we will not get anyone's support until that happens, or they are threatened with either biological or nuclear weapons.

Aaargh, this is a complicated one.

I don't know how many of the rest of you out here find yourself in my position on this issue. My major in college was in Middle Eastern Studies and I lived in Iraq for three months in 1989. I am obsessive about reading the news on this situation. As many reasons as I hear that we shouldn't take out Saddam's regime, I believe there are just as many compelling reasons that we should.

Reasons not to invade:
Human Cost -- we'll lose lots more Americans in Iraq than we did in Afghanistan. And then there are the largely innocent Iraqis that would "collaterally" lose their lives in this invasion. This would be an ugly, bloody fight. Oh, and then consider the spillover implications that this war would have on the Palestinians and Israelis -- lots more innocent civilians there could lose their lives when the Arab street reacts.

Financial Cost -- we're not going to get the buy in from the rich Arabs like we did in the Gulf War this time around. Shrub has already sent us on a nose dive into deficits with his ill advised tax cuts. This mission is ours alone to pay for and it will be expensive. Oh, and then consider the implications that more expensive oil and energy costs will have on our economy.

World Opinion -- we're actually not totally alone on this one. As in Vietnam, the Aussies are in for the fight also. The Brits will assist too. Aside from that, we're largely by ourselves and without international support. No help at all on this from our "friends" like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Indonesia. Oh, and then consider the implications that this war would have on our entirely just war on terrorism. Oh, and then consider the implications that this war would have on our ability to be an honest broker between the Palestinians and the Israelis. I still believe that if we could find a solution to this problem, we wouldn't have half of the trouble we're experiencing these days.

Reasons to invade:
Nip this in the bud and now -- there is convincing evidence that Saddam's regime is well on their way to producing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. They have constantly rejected the UN's efforts at inspection of these weapon development programs. These weapons now threaten Israel and the 'moderate' Arab states. These weapons will soon (if they don't already) threaten Europe, India and Russia. These weapons will eventually threaten the US. Shrub's dad didn't finish the job when he had the chance. If we do not end the threat that Saddam poses to us and our allies now, that threat will only grow in severity over time.

A change in regime dramatically reduces the threat terroism poses to the US -- Saddam has in the past and continues to support terrorist groups seeking to inflict maximum damage on the United States. This support coupled with his developent of weapons of mass destruction presents a clear and credible threat to American lives and ideals. Take out Saddam and we can take out the support of dangerous anti-American terrorists.

A change in regime is in the best interest of the Iraqi people -- Saddam is pure evil. The Iraqi goverment (aka Saddam), with the exceptions of North Korea and Zimbabwe, is the only Cult of Personality regime left in the world, thankfully. Iraqis have NEVER had the opportunity to democratically elect their ruler. Chew on that one for a second. In the history of the state of Iraq, the Iraqis have never had the opportunity to consent to, let alone choose, the government they are subjected to. Saddam's minions regularly kidnap even minor dissidents, torture them, kill them and then dump their bodies on their family's doorsteps with a bill attached for the cost of the bullets used to kill them. Remember Saddam using poisonous gas on his own people in the Kurdish regions in the late 80's? The great tragedy of the Gulf War, the aftermath of that war and the UN's crippling economic sanctions is the suffering of the Iraqi people. This suffering of the Iraqi people will not begin to end until Saddam is gone.

Hell of a jam we find ourselves in right now. But ultimately, the opportunity cost of ignoring the threat that Saddam presents to us is too high.

Another no. Hussein himself does not pose the major threat, but terror networks -- who are likely helped to a greater degree by many rich folk in Saudi Arabia, who we ARE "ignoring."


Civilian, military voices in Administration attempt to dissuade Bush from war (Washington Post)

War-NO! Nuke-YES! This way we can wipe the land clean in seconds. Then we go in, put up condos, shopping malls and 783 starbucks. Personally, I'd like to see a 'Six Flags Over Bagdad.'
But seriously folks, no war, not now. We have to much stuff on our plates as it is. Concentrate on terrorism, if it leads to Iraq then so be it. But by all means, lets talk openly about it in the press all summer. Let them know we're comming. We wouldn't want to catch them with their pants down around their camels.

Taking out Saddam isn't going to make the region safer. It would take years of U.S. involvement--peacekeeping, funding, etc.--to try and get a new government established to the point where it might be able to stand on its own. If there truly are weapons that need to be destroyed, then destroy them. Beyond that, the US needs to be VERY careful.

Joe; agreed. If we do go in and assuming we are succesful, and I think that's a big assumption, then what? Who is in power, how much help with that require from us, and at what cost??

Say what you will about Tom Friedman, but he has an interesting point of view: "Bottom line: A quick victory that brings Iraq fully back into the oil market could lead to a sharp fall in oil incomes throughout OPEC that could seriously weaken the oil cartel and rob its many autocratic regimes of the income they need to maintain their closed political systems. In fact, give me sustained $10-a-barrel oil and I'll give you revolutions from Iran to Saudi Arabia, and throw in Venezuela."

Quoting Philip Verleger at the Council on Foreign Relations: "A proposed attack on Iraq is an extraordinarily high-risk economic adventure that could either destabilize the governments of one or more oil exporting countries by creating a prolonged period of low prices, or, if things went wrong, lead to a prolonged disruption of world oil supplies, which could be even more devastating"

Read entire column (reg. req.)

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Or perhaps the whole region will erupt into utter anarchy, resulting in not just a lack of oil profits but a lack of oil supplies. You might see terrorists from one country blowing up oil tankers/pipelines from another country. Is anyone ready for a 70's-style gas crisis?

And perhaps some of these governments now sponsor terrorism, but maybe they're replaced by regimes run by terrorists. Or perhaps in their desperation, these countries unleash regular terror attacks against America, as they do against Israel. Is anyone ready for THAT?

Thank you. Saudi Arabia is a powderkeg. If we destroy the economy there by causing oil prices to fall, how will we be able to send in troops to quell the situation in that vast country--which produced MOST of the 9/11 hijackers--while also fighting a war in Iraq and in Afghanistan? Turkey is on the edge too. The country is mired in economic problems and is resolutely against unleashing Kurdish drives for independence in Iraq, which could easily translate into an uprising in Turkey. Given the fragile state of the coalition there, the suppressed Islamic parties could take control there.

Another country on the edge is Egypt, which does *not* have oil but a large (60 million) and restive population. Unless we keep lubricating Egypt's financial wheels with the annual $1 billion we send, we could see a revolt there and even more problems for the U.S. Mohammed Atta was from Egypt. Moreover, since much of the Arab world is AGAINST us, oil or no oil, and since Pakistan is another grenade that sits right next to Afghanistan, then do we also want to risk the overthrow of Gen. Musharraf there, the rise of an extreme, Taliban-style government that may very well use nuclear weapons against India AND the U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Don't forget that King Abdullah of Jordan could be overthrown, meaning that that nation, a moderating influence in the Middle East, could fall to Palestinian control....

The current administration is not thinking this one through. They are fixated on avenging the failure of H.W. to take out Saddam, and they also want cheaper oil prices. This is not the way to do it. Unless we have conclusive proof that Saddam has biochemical and/or nuclear weapons, we should try other means, like getting inspectors back in there. Saddam doesn't want a war, so we should use this as leverage. We also should NOT go in there without some Arab support. It's more than these countries getting upset--we have seen what members of their population, operating outside of national lines but with funding from wealthy members of those societies, can do to a major power like the U.S. We have not yet even secured our borders or protected all our vulnerable facilities. Washington still doesn't have an effective evacuation plan. Let's get our own house in order first.

An interesting article in support for a war against Iraq comes from none other than "Savage Love" advice columnist Dan Savage, in this article....

I'm with Thumper until I read up more.

I'm sorry, but Dan Savage should stick to writing about sex, which is at least an issue he has a clue about.

NO! Unless it can be proven that an attack by Iraq on the U.S. is imminent we need to keep out of Iraq's business.

Saw a report the other day where it would cost an estimated $80 Billion to fight a war against Iraq at present.

No war against Iraq at this time. And let's remove those current sanctions that only punish the poor, the children and the elderly in Iraq. How can they be expected to pressure Saddam to change his policies? Replace those deadly sanctions with targeted sanctions against the leaders: freeze their assets and restrict their travel. For more, go to
Global Policy Organization paper on the sanctions

A NY Times article today reports that the "most powerful and Kurdish chieftain in Northern Iraq," Massoud Barzani, snubbed the Bush administration recent meeting of Iraqi opposition leaders. He did this in part because of the U.S.'s "broken promises" concerning material and logistical support. Even Jalal Talabani, Barzani's rival, who is behind a U.S. attack, has criticized the Bush administration for its failed promises. This is no way to win friends and influence allies.

Moreover, our ally Turkey is threatening war against the Iraqi Kurds if they attempt to break away and set up their own nation, which might stoke nationalist aims among Turkey's restive and repressed Kurdish population....

I consider this issue another in a long list of American foreign policy decisions coming home to roost: we supported/kept afloat Saddam for, what, 8 years during the Iraq/Iran war? And he turns out to be an extremely not-nice person? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

I'm just worried that Dubya will use the "Well, the domestic situation is crap, let's distract the peasants with Bread & Circuses (ie war)" kind of thinking--it worked for Thatcher (amongst many others) when she sent the British Navy steaming in to save that desolate pile of rocks called The Falklands from the Evil Argies. While I'm sure that military contractors/suppliers would be happy with a prolonged war, I just don't get the attitude of the "It'll be over fairly quickly" kind of hyperbole that the Ruling Junta, er, current Adminstration, are spinning; as mentioned above, we are not exactly having the welcome mat rolled out for us. Our record of lies and deceit re: the Iraqi's is well documented.

And good for Europe for not kotowing to Dubya's plans. Tony Blair is quite isolated within Britain with his views about supporting America in any planned invasion and there's certainly no other support within the EU for a costly, uncertain-to-succeed invasion. Of course, all the country's there have their own agendas--and dirty hands, there's no moral high ground to be had--but I think it would be a tragic mistake to think we can play Lone Cowboy and solve all of the downtrodden Iraqi's problems in a stroke.

If we do attack, I predict the word "quagmire" will be a common occurrance in news reports.

My take: Unless it is certain that Iraq threatens the United States, why are we even considering Iraq important enough to waste so much money and human resources. Of course it goes without saying that no good Republican can stand a world without war (yes, that was a generalization - sorry), but we have our own problems here in the U.S. that demand immediate attention.

Re Turkey: Turkey has so many 1) human rights atrocities to field; 2) problems to solve re integrating their ethnic minorites (don't like the phrase, but it communicates my point) that who cares about what they want to do about anything Iraqi or Albanian - or Mongolian, for that matter!! I would tell them to get their act together sufficiently to make a respectable, lond-term to the EC and then I'd be willing talk about other endeavors. Other pluses in book would be: getting Turkish government to equitably represent all Muslims, women, and their LGBT community. If New Zealand can do it, let's see what Turkey can come up with.....

Hussein may be a big scare; but, compared with all the terrorism that is possible from every corner of the globe in today's world, I can't help but think that the "urgent need for action against Iraq" is a bloated (and potentially deadly) Republican-sponsored fantasy.

Correction: that was "long-term case" to the EC

Unfortunately Mexico's Vincente Fox is now pissed about the execution of a Mexican prisoner in Texas for the confessed murder, when he was a 19 year old drug dealer, of an undercover USA drug agent.

Four out of five Mexicans believe he was treated unfairly.

Ironic that a USA-Mexico relationship that was building strength after 9/11 is now threatened by this kind of case.

Not only might relaxation of immigration policy changes be delayed but we are slowly drifting away from yet another friendly relationship.

How can we spend so much time talking about bombing Iraq, and maybe North Korea, and Iran...all mostly on our own and maintain a healthy economy at the same time? True, economies recieve a deceptive temporary boost during wartime, but I think history shows that cultures develop most and best over the long term in times of peace.

I think our opinions and maybe even Congress's or the UN's opinions may not matter. There seem to be too many moves afoot by the US military and the State and Defense depts. to hold this off.
Should we do it? Saddam is a murderous creep and deserves to go, but I don't think we have made a case to go in and remove him.
I think this is a personal issue for W and remember they have gotten even with everyone who has crossed the Bush family. Talk to Noriega, Ann Richards, Gore and any other person who has stood in their way.....

The propaganda is escalating ... a Navy pilot believed to have been killed during the Gulf War, will now be listed as MIA-captured or even as a POW. "Some in the Navy are concerned that a decision to change Speicher's status would be interpreted as a political move related to the Bush administration's search for a justification to attack Iraq."

The Spanish-American War had its Battleship Maine. Will Gulf War II have its POW Speicher?

According the White House legal experts, Bush may not need Congressional approval to attack Iraq.
There are a number of well-qualified Republican foreing policy and military experts who are urging caution-- we all agree Saddam needs to prevented from causing more trouble. There may be other means than a unilateral attck.
It is very scary to think that this buffoon is ratcheting up the stakes to avenge his father, also a failed President.

I heard this on CNN today. Sounds like the administration is cranking up the attack rhetoric. I hope Bush isn't going to do this to take the publics mind off of all the crap going on with Cheney and the corrupt CEO's, and all that. In other words, to try to restore his approval ratings.

[quote]Originally posted by puckman1:
I heard this on CNN today. Sounds like the administration is cranking up the attack rhetoric. I hope Bush isn't going to do this to take the publics mind off of all the crap going on with Cheney and the corrupt CEO's, and all that. In other words, to try to restore his approval ratings.

---

Thats exactly what it is, puckman

for my money, it's kudos to maureen dowd. very shortly after dubya's inauguration, she opined that he ran for and won the presidency for one reason and one reason alone -- to avenge poppy, and that our foreign policy was now very simple to enunciate -- get saddam.

i had held out hope, especially after the initial response to 9/11 that she was wrong, but sadly for us it seems her prescience is formidable.

NO

Bush, for me, is the personification of apocalyptic destruction for his own (and his family's) sake. He will not care how many thousands of people he kills, how many careers he destroys, or who he denies their rights to join in the history of America.

I have always felt that Republican presidents, and especially the Bushes, are obsessed with war, at the exclusion of everything else, if only because it makes the economy work more favorably for the Right. I wanted to be wrong (I didn't vote for him - FYI) about George W. I am not. And what about this bringing people together he promised, as if that were one of his strengths? What has he done to bring people together, even in the U.S.? I didn't think he meant town meetings in intensive care units all around the planet - or did he?

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

Mysteriously, Cheney appears to beat the war-drum. Most other items of public interest are off-limits with him now, as he has no time for much if not attached to a Republican fundraiser.

Sending out the underlings/power-behind-the-throne types like Rice and Cheney to say "if/when he has nuclear weapons..." is no substitute for the President clearly saying what the specific threat is now--vs. a year ago etc.

North Korea is a LOT further along with their nuclear weapons development program, and we're hardly even breathing their way.

Consistency is not the hallmark of this--or perhaps any--administration.

[quote]Originally posted by Brent:
Consistency is not the hallmark of this--or perhaps any--administration.

---

Tom DeLay outlined the reasons for going to war with Iraq. According to William Saletan, if we're going to be "consistent" we'd also have to go to war with at least 9 other countries, based on these criteria:

"Sticking with the eight criteria listed above, Ballot Box counts seven that apply to Syria and North Korea, six that apply to Iran, and five that apply to China, Libya, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan."

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2070072

So much for "moral clarity".

[quote]Originally posted by Brent:
Consistency is not the hallmark of this--or perhaps any--administration.

---

Three possible items that make sabre-rattling against Iraq uniquely convenient:

1- specific unspecified threats against the first president George Bush's person;

2- best possible diversion from the questions about the president, vice president, and some others in the current USA administration, concerning past business practices;

3- the economic threat to our source of cheap oil and the profits of interests such as those involved in #2.

Was it Clinton who bombed Libya primarily for threats against Ronald Reagan, as well as threats to middle east stability and, perhaps to enhance his standing with moderate-conservatives?

This president has a different "nemisis" but perhaps similar motivations.

As much as the current Bush administration criticizes the Clintons, they seem to inevitably end up copying them, for better or worse.

They all "consistently" seek to stay in power as long as possible. Our insane prez is no different.

And this one may yet find a way to perpetuate his policies - administered by another oilman - by further perversion of the electoral process.

Barring that, we may yet see an October surprise.

I vote no...it just doesn't seem like the right time.