Librarium Online Forums banner

Should we go to war with Iraq?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In case any of you didn't hear......
President Bush has just told Saddam Husseian that he and his sons have 48 hours to leave Iraq before the War is launched. Bush had said this along with a speech earlier today.

What do you think about a war with Iraq?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
I'm a Political Science student right now and I can't think of any good reason to go to war with Iraq at the moment. From all of our research and studies the case for war just isnt strong enough. Most of America agrees with the rational response and oppose war but i will support our army in the end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,770 Posts
The question of IF the USA should go to war is not a clear yes...
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, no doubt about that... then it hits you again that no way in hell that Saddam Hussein will give them up. He's been sitting as their head of state for around 25 years, what makes you even consider that he will give up or go into exile...

The question wether the USA will go to war is not a question of if anymore, it's a question of when...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
I for one think we should go. To me its about doing what you say. The world said "Iraq disarm or else." and Iraq said "Ok", and Iraq has not lived up to their end and now we must live up to your's even if there are those that won't (France, Gremany, Russia). Its that simple to me. I wish I was with them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,770 Posts
True, Iraq has not got to terms with the orders they have recieved about disarming.
They have had their chance to disarm since the gulf war 12 years ago.
As The White House has said, "the diplomatic window is closed..."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
I do think that something should be done. But I don't think that war is the answer. The people of Iraq are not our enemy. The people of Iraq are under threat if they oppose Saddam. The biggest worry at the moment is the phneumonia thing going around that has no cure. Biological weapon?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
The biggest worry at the moment is the phneumonia thing going around that has no cure. Biological weapon?
Doubt it. It seems to have started in the Asia area, which I believe is where a lot of flus get their start (could be wrong). Also, if a biological weapon had been employed you would see a much greater concentration of the illness in one city.

The question over whether or not to go to war in Iraq is kind of moot now. I do agree with Norseman that it is a question of doing what you say and maintaining credibility. If we lose the credibility of our deterent, how many more rogue regimes will try something thinking they can get away with it the way Iraq has? I generally don't like Bush and think he has diplomatically been backing himself into not having many allies for over a year. :roll: Then again he doesn't have much of a choice now. Resolution 1441 said that Iraq had to show immediate and active cooperation. They didn't. It seems over to me.

I have two big concerns. One is that we have somehow underestimated the Iraqi will to fight. Hopefully after Hussein is out of power (because I doubt we will enter most of the cities until we've taken Baghdad) most of the civilians and military personell of Iraq will not fight. This way we will be able to avoid most of the street fighting. But on the off chance they do fight...we're better equipped, better trained, better everything, but it will still be costly.

My other fear is bio and chem weapons. Our troops and the Brittish troops are, as far as I know, fairly well protected. The Iraqi civilians are not. The question is not will Hussein use such weapons, it is will his military commanders, middle ranking officers, use them? If they do, we could have a lot of civilian casualties, especially if they go biological.

However, the decision has been made, we are going to war, so I personally fall in line and give my full support to the war effort. Let's fight the war properly since we're going to fight it anyways, and discuss it once our troops are no longer being shot at.

edit: Dragonslayero: I don't think anyone believes Hussein will go into exile. Bush put out the 48 hour ultimatum because going straight to war without offering one more chance for Hussein to leave would look hasty and to allow people like Tony Blair to get everything tied up and ready to go politically in their own countries.

Also, for those of you in Brittain, how well does Blair seem to be riding out this whole thing. Think he'll be able to hold his post? I really like him, it would be a shame to see him go...
 

·
Lord of the Household
Joined
·
1,733 Posts
I didn't used to be but now I believe it is necessary.

I just wrote a long statement as to why it was necessary but the f***ing 'Invalid_session erased it... so maybe I'll write it again later...

This is the second time it's happened today... Gotta remember to copy my messages before I post them...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
Also, for those of you in Brittain, how well does Blair seem to be riding out this whole thing. Think he'll be able to hold his post? I really like him, it would be a shame to see him go...
Blair has done well with Uk, I think the ppl here would seem him for more of his past reputation more than what is happenig now. He went through the floods, petrol crisis, foot and mouth and still standing. I think he will keep his post. Espeacially now since the general idea on war is beging to slant on his side
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
This is the second time it's happened today... Gotta remember to copy my messages before I post them...
I feel your pain. I actually have posted at a site for a while that occassionally would give me a similar problem so I'm already in the habbit of copying before I post...usually...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
Blair has done well with Uk, I think the ppl here would seem him for more of his past reputation more than what is happenig now. He went through the floods, petrol crisis, foot and mouth and still standing. I think he will keep his post. Espeacially now since the general idea on war is beging to slant on his side
Good to know. I would hate to see him lose his office for siding with the US on a foreign policy issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Saddam Hussiean has rejected the U.S.'s offer to evacuate about an hour ago but, he still has time to leave.

Do you realise that President Bush specifically said the U.S. is not having the war agaisnt Iragi people? He said the U.S. will bring them food, medical aid, etc.
Do any of you know the constant fear those people have been living in? All that fear has been driven into them because of Saddam. He uses chemical weapons on his own people. He is a cruel tyrant that has to be put down. Our modern weapons are so good and accurate that the civilian casualties will be at a minimum. This is a war between armys. We will not go in and slaughter the civilian population. There is a threat of him using chemical weapons. We specifically said if you use chemicals we will use nukes. That's pretty fair, don't you think? Anyway, there is a chance that the Iragi armys will surrender on the spot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
We specifically said if you use chemicals we will use nukes. That's pretty fair, don't you think?
I didn't think we said that specifically. Anyways, we won't use nukes. Not going to happen. Why? Because, it would do more damage to civilians than to his military. If we want to do massive amounts of damage on his military, we have the tools to do it conventionally. You think it was a coincidence what we just tested our first 21000lb bomb? And we've had the BLU-82 15000lb bomb (incorrectly known as the "Daisy Cutter") since Vietnam. We even used some in Afghanistan. There is some talk about developing nuclear bunker busters that would burrow far into the ground before exploding minimizing fall out, but I doubt those will ever even be developed. Remember, the whole idea behind nukes in this age is that you never have to use them. If you have to use your nukes, then your arsenal has failed in its primary purpose (deterence).

I don't think anyone would argue that Hussein is a nice guy. The more reasonable arguments against war (and there are many, it's just sometimes the less reasonable ones are the most vocal) deal more with the idea that it may actually cause more suffering (the war) than Hussein will on the Iraqi people. I don't buy that, but if you do that's your prerogative and I respect that.

I already discussed my fears, concerns, and thoughts on the war in my earlier post. The idea is to avoid civilian casualties, but there will be Iraqi civilian casualties. The militaries of the US and UK will do everything in their power to minimize them, but they will occur.

This is war, real war. It is important for us, people who play table top war games, to remember that real war is not a game. It is not a stat line and a dice role. All of the gloom of a war-torn city can create a riveting environment for a game, but when it is real that is a completely different story. Don't get me wrong, I am still for this war (given the circumstances, which is a long discussion...I'm not some hard-core yay war republican though), just as I was for the NATO intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia. It is sad that human dealings sometimes come to such things, but alas they do, and we must be ready. Let us simply hope that by showing our force and our resolve now, by showing that we will not tolerate a rogue regime which defies the will of the international community and threatens the stability and peace of the world, and by maintaining a powerful military ready to make war in order to ensure peace, that we will not soon be faced with another situation where we have no other viable option but to mount a large scale invasion of a foreign country.

I believe it was Robert E. Lee who said something to the effect of "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
BorninDarkness is right, we should have killed him a long time ago. Anyone know why not?
Politics I think. I know that's why we didn't keep going during the first Gulf War. We would have lost our coalition (well, a lot of it anyways) and they didn't think it was worth it. Of course, hindsight is 20/20. In terms of why we haven't just had the CIA knock him off or something like that, well, I think it is very difficult to figure out where he is and so forth. Besides, even if we had killed him (which would have been nice), we would still probably have to go in now, either to help establish order and so forth or to depose his replacement. The whole situation in Iraq is a mess and will be until the US and UK militaries roll in to Baghdad. Then things will start to get better.

Out of curiosisty, ColonelKillmore, what unit is you dad in?
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top