Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should the West topple Saddam Hussein?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should the West topple Saddam Hussein?

    CNN - In a nationally televised speech, Hussein said a U.S. attack on Iraq would be "doomed to failure."

    In the speech -- marking Great Victory Day -- the 14th anniversary of the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Hussein said Western threats didn't frighten him and that his country was ready to repel any attack.

    Wearing a civilian gray suit, Hussein criticized what he called the "arrogance and greed" of his potential aggressors.

    Using quasi-prophetic language, he predicted oppressors who seek to commit "a heinous act" would "fall to hell," adding that Allah would always help "a just cause prevail over injustice."

    Leaving an option open for the United States, he urged potential attackers to "think again." But he warned that any nation that struck Iraq would be "consigned to the dustbin of history."

    "All empires and bearers of the coffin of evil have found themselves buried in their own coffins with their sick dreams when they have sought to harm Arab and Muslim nations," the Iraqi leader said in the 22-minute taped speech carried on state television.

    "This inevitable outcome awaits all those who try to attack the Arabs and Muslims."
    This sounds a lot like the infamous "Mother of all battles" speech before the Gulf War. But it does bring up the question of what, if anything, the West should do about Saddam Hussein.

    Opinion seems sharply divided on this issue. What are the risks of Operation Desert Storm II? What is the potential payoff? It seems the main reason for getting rid of the Iraqi leader is to help ensure the destruction of Iraq's NBC weapons. Would Saddam actually assist terrorists with these types of weapons if he had them?

    I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't just let the Arabs settle their own problems and buy oil from the winners. On the other hand, if we wait and do nothing a Saddam Hussein armed with nuclear weapons could be an intolerable threat to virtually everyone.
    Editor-in-Chief
    GameSquad.com

  • #2
    re

    IMHO, they should have put a stopped to Saddam Hussein the last time, instead of letting him continue being president of Iraq. All this time he has been allowed, he's probably got a big batch of terrible weapons which he is just waiting unleash.


    >>Would Saddam actually assist terrorists with these types of weapons if he had them

    Yes he would. There is no doubt at all his hatred for the Americans and her allies.


    >>I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't just let the Arabs settle their own problems and buy oil from the winners.

    Arabs never settled their problems. They haven't for thousands of years as far as it seems to me. The only way any winner can be declared would be if one side is completedly wiped from the earth. Unfortunate but probably true, they seem to server "eye for an eye" up to forever.


    War is inevitable, it's a matter of when.

    Comment


    • #3
      Well, with hindsight, it seems to me that desert strom was a complete strategical failure, since 11 years after the problem is still here. Kuwait was liberated, Saddam's army was crushed (anyone knows if he rebuild it by the way?) and the black gold was flowing westward again but the threat remains.

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree with most of whats been said so far.Though the UN mandate stated the goal was to free Kuwait not topple Saddam.Whether the coalition would have survived if they went on to Baghdad will probablely be one of those what ifs debated for a long time.As far as the current situation he is a menace to the entire region,and with weapons of mass destruction will be a threat to the world.He has shown no hesitation previously in using chemical weapons against both the Kurds and the Iranians,leaving 10,000`s dead.He would not hesitate to use these again,against both his neighbors and the west.I`m begining to agree with those who say we should buy more of our oil off the russians.It may also have the desired effect of,by boosting their economy,keeping them from selling their technological know-how to the highest bidder.

        Comment


        • #5
          No doubt Hussein's regime is a great evil in the world, however, no country has the right to overthrow or subvert another nations government, no matter how right the former and evil the latter may be. In the vast majority of cases, history has judged the aggressor as the enemy, and in this case the USA would be the agressor. Unfourtunately it's a very difficult situation. An evil regime exists, however if war is waged, or the government subverted, then we in the west can no longer claim any moral high ground (not that we really can to start with though).

          Many 'evil' governments have been overthrown in the past century, only to result in more trouble, and millions of innocent deaths. No nation should have the right to unilateraly overthrow a government which it dosen't like. IMHO, attacking Iraq or assasinating Hussein is not a viable option. If the Iraqi people really want change, they will bring about change themselves. The Soviet Union (and its associated Warsaw Pact nations), Indonesia, South Korea, are all major examples of the citizens forcing its oppressive government to change. We need to stop messing in other peoples affairs, and let them decide for themselves. If Hussein attacks his neighbours, then we should become militarily involved. Until then, all honest diplomatic avenues should be explored to avoid war at all costs.

          Comment


          • #6
            from US' point of view

            I do not know what the point is from moral points or whatever international or even iraqi's eyes ---- to attack Iraq. And probably they ain't simply important at all. Since Bush started his regime of "anti-terrorism", which indeed, more or less is "unileteralism" under the name of anti-terror, nobody can (or dare) to stop him, since US is a superpower, and THE very only superpower in the world (at the current stage, I doubt if the rest of world all united together could resist a US attack... of course, that is impossible.). So this means more or less Bush can do whatever he likes, no matter whatever others think or say. And that is fine, people just need to learn to live with it.

            But the question is this: I never really understand what good "attacking Saddam" or Iraq can buy for the majority of Americans? I was very curious about this question (only curious), so I listened and watched the news, debates very closely and carefully, still I cannot find answer.... Oil? nah... US already got enough, of course, you can get more by doing Iraq, but how much more? And how much this will cost you? (of course, except weapon dealers) Terror? Some1 really think killing some more people can solve the terrorism? Com'on. And besides, it seems US is now enlisting its former allies into "enemies" (Saudi Arab, for example) ..... is that a gain or price to pay? I do not know, I was just curious though. I do not understand, but I do not have my own stand either. I guess it is just something interesting and new that I should watch and learn
            Attn to ALL my opponents:

            If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

            Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.

            Comment


            • #7
              I am inclined to agree with ER, I have trouble seeing the value added to attacking Iraq. Yes he is not the most pleasant character around, but is the cost(casualties/political) worth the benefit? There really isn't anything to say the follow-on guy would be much better, I vaguely recall us supporting him during his war with Iran, because Iran was the greater of the 2 evils in our eyes then. Also I'd really be interested in our exit plan afterwards, we seldom do well in that area as 12+ SFOR rotations in Bosina and counting exhibits. If we think that we are stretched thin in areas now, imagine V Corps in Iraq "Peacekeeping/Peace Enforcing" for the next 10yrs along with SFOR/KFOR in the Balkans continuing and a continuing War on Terror.
              Popester

              Comment


              • #8
                I certainly don't have the answers, but I'm going to stir the pot anyway.

                Originally posted by Martin Schenkel
                No doubt Hussein's regime is a great evil in the world, however, no country has the right to overthrow or subvert another nation's government, no matter how right the former and evil the latter may be.
                I don't believe the argument here is that the West is simply considering attacking Iraq because we are "right" and they are "wrong." There are plenty of evil places in the world that could do with a dose of their own medicine, but no one is considering invading them. The world is content, for the most part, to watch these regions murder, oppress or starve their own citizens to death. Tragic, but not worth risking our own people.

                The argument for invading Iraq, as I understand it, is that the Iraqi dictatorship either has or is acquiring weapons of mass destruction and there is every reason to believe they will be used in an offensive role. The US might be high on the list, but Saddam might choose to employ these weapons against any number of targets. London is a lot closer than Washington and he hates Britain no less than he hates America...

                In the vast majority of cases, history has judged the aggressor as the enemy, and in this case the USA would be the aggressor. Unfortunately it's a very difficult situation. An evil regime exists, however if war is waged, or the government subverted, then we in the west can no longer claim any moral high ground (not that we really can to start with though).
                I disagree completely. If I see a man about to harm my child - but he hasn't pulled the trigger yet - should I simply stand by and allow him to commit this crime so that I can claim the moral high ground? All peoples and all nations have a right to defend themselves from naked aggression. If you want to get technical about it, the Gulf War never really ended. A cease fire was signed, however, Iraq has never complied with any of the terms that it agreed to. The UN has condemned Iraq's refusal to comply and that is why coalition forces routinely conduct combat flight operations in both of the No Fly Zones. Note that I said coalition forces, not US forces. This is a multinational effort involving many different countries.

                Many 'evil' governments have been overthrown in the past century, only to result in more trouble, and millions of innocent deaths.
                What then is your point? Should we simply accept that evil dictatorships will invade their neighbors and threaten the stability of entire regions? Negotiation and diplomacy simply will not work with these type of people. The 20th century taught us that there is a terrible price to pay for inaction in the face of tyranny and aggression. The US and Europe went down that road once before and 50 million people died to learn those lessons.

                No nation should have the right to unilaterally overthrow a government which it doesn't like.
                Agreed. No one is talking about that.

                IMHO, attacking Iraq or assassinating Hussein is not a viable option. If the Iraqi people really want change, they will bring about change themselves. The Soviet Union (and its associated Warsaw Pact nations), Indonesia, South Korea, are all major examples of the citizens forcing its oppressive government to change. We need to stop messing in other peoples affairs, and let them decide for themselves. If Hussein attacks his neighbors, then we should become militarily involved. Until then, all honest diplomatic avenues should be explored to avoid war at all costs.
                I agree that we need to avoid war if at all possible. However, if Saddam Hussein is armed with ICBMs and provides Al Qaeda or other groups financial support and a safe haven to conduct training operations, then that is also not an acceptable option. Right now President Bush is the lone voice crying for a regime change in Iraq. He is not getting as much support as he could because he has not made a public speech outlining why this is necessarry. All we are doing right now is having a debate about the possibility. If Paris or Berlin is nuked by terrorists next week, then fifty years from now Bush might be remembered as a hero.

                I'm not sure that military action against Iraq is a forgone conclusion just yet. President Bush has said that all options are on the table, but contrary to some misguided press reports, there is no unilateral action on the part of the US. Preident Bush has talked to the heads of many governments in both Europe and the Middle East. No decisions have been made and no action has been taken yet. Here is what Rumsfeld had to say:

                Rumsfeld also answered criticisms that the United States is acting unilaterally in its war on terrorism and in other matters of foreign policy. More than 90 countries have joined in the anti-terrorism fight, Rumsfeld said, with 37 sending military representatives to U.S. Central Command headquarters in Florida.

                “We have, as Saddam Hussein would say, the mother of all coalitions going on,” Rumsfeld said. “And yet we see these burbles in the press implying that it’s some sort of a unilateralist approach. It is not.”

                Still, Rumsfeld said, opposition from other countries would not stop the United States from pursuing its goals.

                “You must not fashion a coalition and then let it determine the mission,” Rumsfeld said. “To the extent you do that, you end up dumbing down to the lowest common denominator, and it seems to me that we can’t do that.”
                Editor-in-Chief
                GameSquad.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  Reasons for going to War?

                  It has been said over and over again that the U.S wants to invade Iraq because the Iraqi's wont allow any weapons inspectors in.

                  An Iraqi spokesman in London said on a morning T.V show that they would let them in, if they show the Iraqi's where the supposed sites were. If this is not the Iraqi's wanting to talk and not to go to war then I don't know what is.

                  This IS the only reason that the U.S is giving with respect to the regime change they want to see in Iraq. Yet the Iraqi's want to talk, the Americans do not. In a little way it seems as though the Americans have already mad their minds up, THEY want to change the regime in Iraq. The U.N want to talk, so do the Iraqi's, America could possibly come out with another reason, defending Kuwait or the Kurds in Northern Iraq would be starters, however no-one else in the region (other than Isreal) wants it to change, even Saudi Arabia, from where Operation Desert Storm was based in 1990, does not want the Americans in their country.

                  To me it seems as though the west (my country included) should leave Saddam alone, aslong as he lets in the weapons inspectors and complies with the U.N ceasefire agreements.

                  If he does not:

                  During the Napoleonic Wars the various allied forces at the time clearly stated that they were not at war with France, just Napoleon (of course after he took power, before that it was just the revolutionairies). This was done so the French people would feel liberated when the Allied forces won (wehter they did or did not I do not know) They did not want a nation hating them, a nation which they wanted to trade with, and become allied with in the future.

                  I believe this could be done with Saddam Hussein. The people of Iraq have suffered immensly, not just through the odd U.S attack during B. Clintons term, but also at the hands of the Iraqi leadership. In Afghanistan the Americans dropped not only bombs (which looked like foodparcels) but foodparcels (which looked like unexploded bombs). Could the Americans do the same to Iraq, but also drop leaflets telling the people of Iraq just why they are also being bombed. And if anyone says anything about strategic bombing then you gotta be kidding, there is absolutly no such thing, except in a Generals dream.
                  As I walk through the valley of death I shall fear no Evil.

                  For I am the meanest mother f***** in the valley.

                  George Patton jr.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    SHOULD THE WEST ATTACK SADDAM?

                    I DON'T THINK SO......I MEAN WHY? SURELY FOR A NATION OR NATIONS TO GO TO WAR THERE MUST BE VALID REASONS FOR DOING SO.
                    AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME THERE IS NO PROOF THAT SADDAM HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. EVEN IF HE IS DEVELOPING THEM IT IS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. EVEN IF HE DOES DEVELOP THEM HOW COULD HE THREATEN HIS NEIGHBOURS WITHOUT A VIABLE DELIVERY SYSTEM. TO THREATEN ANY OF HIS NEIGHBOURS HE WOULD FIRST HAVE TO REVEAL THEIR EXISTENCE THUS RISKING DESTRUCTION BY THE U.S. / BRITAIN OR THE ISRAELIS.
                    I THINK IT IS PREMATURE TO TALK OF AN ATTACK ON IRAQ AND I REALLY DOUBT IF IT WOULD EVER BE STRATEGICALLY NECESSARY.
                    http://www.irelandinhistory.blogspot.ie/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Unfortunately we don't know what type of weapons the Iraqis may or may not have developed. Saddam Hussein has shown in the past that he his not afraid of taking offensive actions with either NBC or conventional weapons.

                      As for the Iraqi talk about letting in inspectors, this is old trick they have been playing for several years. They say inspectors are OK but then they put on dozens conditions that make it impossible for the inspectors to do their job. Even just after the Gulf War in the early 1990's the government of Iraq never really cooperated with the inspectors.

                      Some questions to think about in regards to inspectors:
                      What happens if inspectors find weapons of mass destruction? What if they find evidence of these weapons but aren't allowed to further their investigation? How long will the inspectors be given? How much authority will they have?

                      As for starting a war this is a tough call. On the one hand the conflict will cost a lot of lives (on both sides), put a strain on our armed forces, and might make the world economy even shakier. It will cost many billions of dollars to put the forces in place and could make the region even more unstable than it currently is.

                      However on the otherhand to let Hussein use the country of Iraq as his personal NBC playpen isn't acceptable. I have no doubt that the events of 9-11 made Hussein happy as a school girl. He has probably been reinvigorated with all kinds of evil plans dancing in his head yet again.
                      Last edited by Chuck?; 09 Aug 02, 17:29.
                      "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                      Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Maddog

                        I disagree completely. If I see a man about to harm my child - but he hasn't pulled the trigger yet - should I simply stand by and allow him to commit this crime so that I can claim the moral high ground? All peoples and all nations have a right to defend themselves from naked aggression.

                        Unfourtunately, this is the very core of the difficulty with international politics. It's just one giant Prisoner's Dilema. Do nothing, and there is a good chance the man will harm your children. If you strike first, he (or his friends) will very likely retaliate. This will cause you to (justifiably) retaliate in kind, prompting him to retaliate once more, and so on. It's a vicious circle. So what does one do? It's an extremely difficult decision. The only way to break the cycle of violence, is for one side to stop. Neither side is willing to make that sacrifice, so nothing changes.



                        What then is your point? Should we simply accept that evil dictatorships will invade their neighbors and threaten the stability of entire regions? Negotiation and diplomacy simply will not work with these type of people. The 20th century taught us that there is a terrible price to pay for inaction in the face of tyranny and aggression. The US and Europe went down that road once before and 50 million people died to learn those lessons.



                        No, my point, or perhaps maybe my frustration, is that attacking Iraq and ousting Hussein is only a temporary solution. The problem is that in the past century, 'nationbuilding' by world powers has failed miserably. Suppose Saddam is successfully toppled. The new government that is created will be largely pro-USA/West (which is the whole point of toppling Saddam). However, do the Iraqi people blindly accept this 'better' government? Will they resent us, much like the Germans post-WW1? There is no easy answer, and I don't want to claim to have any. It's an extremely difficult situation.

                        In regards to Rumsfeld's quote, it seems very paradoxical in my view. He describes this great multilateral anti-terror coalition, yet says opposition from the coalition won't change the USA's mind. Isn't the whole point of MULTIlateralism to create and implement a strategy that the whole coalition can (relatively) agree upon? Abandoning or ignoring the coalition would be the definition of UNIlateralism.
                        Last edited by Martin Schenkel; 10 Aug 02, 02:07.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Iraq's next government?

                          Originally posted by Martin Schenkel


                          Suppose Saddam is successfully toppled. The new government that is created will be largely pro-USA/West (which is the whole point of toppling Saddam). However, do the Iraqi people blindly accept this 'better' government? Will they resent us, much like the Germans post-WW1?


                          I Agree with Martin totally on this, at the moment the Gulf States all abide Saddam, they don't like him, in some ways they fear him, and no doubt in Kuwait and Iran they hate him.

                          But they do not want to go to war with Iraq, should there be a war with Iraq then there is no question who would win, however in a major way all would lose:

                          Iraq's war with the west or even just U.S would be a very short, yet costly war.

                          Iraq's new government would no doubt be very pro-west.

                          Does the world need another Isreal in the form of Iraq? I have no doubt that the new pro-west Iraq would affect the Saudi's, the Iranians and many other Arab countries a lot more than Saddams Iraq currently does.

                          As for the what ifs about Inspectors going into Iraq then they should stick to any rules that the U.N and Iraq agree to. Should the Iraqi's make it impossible for tem to work then let the U.N decide the next course of action, should it be war then by all means go kick ass, Saddam has used Chemical weapons on his own people before, however when his army was being destroyed in 1990, especially on the Basra road, he did not fire a single drop of any Chemical (no doubt after the Coalitions bombardment he couldn't even drop his pants let alone a bomb).

                          I believe that the last century was a one we should learn from, do not repeat the mistakes of our grandparents and go to war for a belief, the Americans believe they are right and just to invade Iraq. Would the Arab league defend Iraq? When Germany invaded Poland they did not believe that Britain and France would come to their allies aid, they did and it was the start of a war which I do not want to see happening in my lifetime.

                          Should there be no other reason than to go to war, then what happens happens, however war should only happen after ALL other solutions are thought through. Not simply because it is right to kill a murderer, should Saddam have weapons of mass destruction then war will be made upon the peoples of Iraq, and it could only get worse from there.
                          As I walk through the valley of death I shall fear no Evil.

                          For I am the meanest mother f***** in the valley.

                          George Patton jr.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If some type of military action is to be taken then I am certain that President Bush will address the nation and make his case to the international community. Why is Bush so determined to topple Saddam? After all, the Iraqi leader has been rather quiet for the past few years other than some minor mischief. That leads me to believe that the President has damning information in his possession that he is choosing to withhold for now. My guess is that this information is extremely sensitive and revealing it to the world prematurely could hurt many nations' interests in the war on terror, not to mention compromising the source of the intelligence. That's only a guess though.

                            Okay, now that we have had some discussion of whether the West should oust Saddam Hussein, what do we do if the answer is no? If we decide not to invade, do we then just sit helpless and hope for the best?

                            If we are not prepared to risk offensive action, what are we prepared to risk?
                            Editor-in-Chief
                            GameSquad.com

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              IF SADDAM REALLY HAS OR IS DEVELOPING NBC WEAPONS THAT ARE SUCH A THREAT TO THE WORLD, ESP. HIS NEIGHBOURS, THEN SURELY COUNTRIES SUCH AS IRAN, SAUDI ARABIA, SYRIA ETC WOULD BE JUST AS CONCERNED AS THE USA/UK ?
                              I AM SURE THESE COUNTRIES HAVE ENOUGH CONTACTS ON THE GROUND INSIDE IRAQ TO KNOW THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE IF SOMETHING WAS UP. SO FAR THEY DO NOT SEEM PARTICULARLY CONCERNED.
                              ANYWAY HOW IS AMERICA GOING TO INVADE IRAQ? IT COULD ONLY BE THROUGH KUWAIT OR PERHAPS A SEA/AIR INVASION THROUGH THE VERY TIP OF SOUTHERN IRAQ ON A VERY NARROW FRONT WHILE THE REST OF THE WORLD LOOKS ON. IF SO IT WILL BE IIRC THE FIRST TIME AMERICA HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN A MAJOR INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT WITHOUT ANY ALLIES SINCE THE SPANISH- AMERICAN WAR I THINK.
                              THERE IS ALREADY A GAME FOR ACOW ON THIS WHICH I PLAYED SOLITAIRE SOME TIME AGO. THE USA WON OF COURSE BUT TOOK AROUND 2,500 CASUALTIES BEFORE BAGHDAD FELL.
                              http://www.irelandinhistory.blogspot.ie/

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X