Why do YOU think we should go to war NOW - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

DieselHead · #1 03-03-2003, 10:27 PM

Just wondering why those war supporters out there believe we should go to war tomorrow.

A guy I was talking to at my mechanic (not my mechanic) said we should go in there and nuke the arabs just to send a message, and then when the war is over, make sure no food or aid gets in there. I hope there aren't any people here who lack faculties of reason like that guy.

jeffwolinski · #2 03-04-2003, 11:15 AM

There are military and logistical reasons for going into Iraq soon if it is to be done, as well as economic considering the cost of maintaining the forward deployment of troops, sailors, and assets.

Although there are super-hawks out there that want to obliterate everything in sight, there are many well-reasoned arguments for taking out Hussein, and there are also many reasons to be believe that he will never fully cooperate and continue to hamper any inspection program. He has been playing with the UN for well over a decade. I must admit that he is a wiley SOB.

I strongly feel that history is full of examples of appeasment and failure to confront tyrants leading to greater disasters later. Post WWI Germany managed to ignore many limitations of arms control and expansionism, and those that chose to ignore this or act as appeasers in order to avoid confrontation ended up paying a very steep price. I do think that the current situation has many similarities.

DieselHead · #3 03-04-2003, 12:32 PM

Quote:

I strongly feel that history is full of examples of appeasment and failure to confront tyrants leading to greater disasters later.

You are absolutely right. Saddam is less powerful and has less capability to do damage than in 1991. Why are we not focusing our attentions on North Korea, who just officially announced that any any military action taken against them will result in nuclear war? Why? Because Bush has more to gain politically in the Middle East. Don't you find it hypocritical that we're now appeasing North Korea? Clinton had the right idea, just didn't implement it properly. Food and energy (which in the long run empower the people) in exchange for limited nuclear development would have worked had we monitored their affairs more diligently. The North Koreans are playing us, yet that doesn't bother anyone.

You are also right about the practical and humanistic reasons to deal with Saddam which is why I am not opposed to war, although I am far from being adament and hawkish about it.

Alex

DieselHead · #4 03-04-2003, 12:34 PM

Quote:

I strongly feel that history is full of examples of appeasment and failure to confront tyrants leading to greater disasters later.

You are absolutely right. Saddam is less powerful and has less capability to do damage than in 1991. Why are we not focusing our attentions on North Korea, who just officially announced that any any military action taken against them will result in nuclear war? Why? Because Bush has more to gain politically in the Middle East. Don't you find it hypocritical that we're now appeasing North Korea? Clinton had the right idea, just didn't implement it properly. Food and energy (which in the long run empower the people) in exchange for limited nuclear development would have worked had we monitored their affairs more diligently. The North Koreans are playing us, yet that doesn't bother anyone.

You are also right about the practical and humanistic reasons to deal with Saddam which is why I am not opposed to war, although I am far from being adament and hawkish about it. I am put off from the idea of war now though because Bush hasn't hinted to us at all about how he's going to manage the war. What happens with the rebuilding of Iraq? Are we going to leave them just like we left Afghanistan? How much is this war going to cost? What are the casualty estimates (especially the Iraqi estimates)? This administration has been notorious for keeping a tight lid on info and their agendas. War is the biggest of all policies a presidency deals with. We deserve to be in the know and I don't believe that giving us SOME info would be a security breach.

Alex

jeffwolinski · #5 03-04-2003, 12:47 PM

I just addressed some of these points in the Hillary thread, but to summarize, we can only do so much at one time and we are currently pre-positioned to deal with Iraq.

We are in no way appeassing North Korea! The fact that they are probably nuke-capable is certainly a major fact to consider before proceeding against them. I also do not see anyone happy that they are defying the world in accelerating their nuclear program. Believe me , pleanty of people in and out of this administration are bothered by it!

One thing at a time.

DieselHead · #6 03-04-2003, 12:57 PM

We'll see. Bush will go to war unless Saddam backs down, and it will be some policy victory for him (large or small, depends on how it goes). If Bush gets re-elected, which may not be the case because Americans generally vote with their wallets/purses we many just drop North Korea. After all, they can only launch against Eastern Russia, parts of China, South Korea and Japan, and why do we need those regions anyway? Eastern Russia houses prisoners and people too poor to buy American goods, China, well you know about that whole Commie thing, South Korea..... we can do without the competition, and Japan, our poorly made vehicles and electronic goods should be dominating the global market. I have a feeling N. Korea might be lost in the paper work. This administration may not be so completely ideological as many patriotism blinded Americans might think.

Alex

jeffwolinski · #7 03-04-2003, 01:04 PM

I can see that we will have to "agree to disagree"!

Recent intelligence does show that the latest North Korea ICBMs can reach the US West Coast. China and Russia happen to be on semi-friendly terms with Kim Jong Il. A nuclear North Korea will also certainly lead to a nuclear Japan in short order in my opinion, which will of course call for escalation with China, etc., etc.

I believe I can safely state that none of us can predict what is going to happen in every circumstance. Let's just be happy that we can debate such matters in an open forum, unlike Iraq, N. Korea, China, Russia (to a lesser extent than USSR days).

mikemover · #8 03-04-2003, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DieselHead
The North Koreans are playing us, yet that doesn't bother anyone.

It bothers ME...Dealing with them is LONG overdue, and it needs to be done very forcefully...Every time that regime decides they want some money/food/oil/attention/reactors/etc. they start rattling sabers and causing a ruckus, then when someone helps them out a little (usually us), it's back to business as usual. That crap needs to STOP.

Quote:

Originally posted by DieselHead
I am put off from the idea of war now though because Bush hasn't hinted to us at all about how he's going to manage the war. What happens with the rebuilding of Iraq? Are we going to leave them just like we left Afghanistan? How much is this war going to cost? What are the casualty estimates (especially the Iraqi estimates)? This administration has been notorious for keeping a tight lid on info and their agendas. War is the biggest of all policies a presidency deals with. We deserve to be in the know and I don't believe that giving us SOME info would be a security breach.

We have NOT left Afghanistan...We have a large presence there, and will have for quite some time, I'm sure. That issue is far from over.

A "tight lid" SHOULD be kept on our military plans. What you see on the news, the enemy ALSO sees on the news. We already have tons of info on what's going on...but the specifics of our plans CANNOT be divulged. Come on man, this is common sense.

Mike

DieselHead · #9 03-04-2003, 01:08 PM

No, I don't care about the logistics of how we're going to take care of it. I just want to see the numbers, the ideology behind it. What are we going to do when it's done? What are the human risks. Giving us that kind of info isn't breaching security at all. I don't care how many ships are out there, I don't care where our forces are deployed and in what numbers. I do care about what Bush's larger vision is (if he has one). I care about what Bush envisions with regards to peace and resolution. I want to know how Bush intends to establish a provisional government, and I want to know with who. What are we going to do about the Kurds. You think talking about that will be a security threat? I don't think so. I want to see that Bush is a thinker, not just a strong arm. The issues won't go away after we remove Saddam. The fact that he doesn't address these issues further reinforces the idea that this is all just political.

Alex

mikemover · #10 03-04-2003, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DieselHead
No, I don't care about the logistics of how we're going to take care of it. I just want to see the numbers, the ideology behind it. What are we going to do when it's done? What are the human risks. Giving us that kind of info isn't breaching security at all. I don't care how many ships are out there, I don't care where our forces are deployed and in what numbers. I do care about what Bush's larger vision is (if he has one). I care about what Bush envisions with regards to peace and resolution. I want to know how Bush intends to establish a provisional government, and I want to know with who. What are we going to do about the Kurds. You think talking about that will be a security threat? I don't think so. I want to see that Bush is a thinker, not just a strong arm. The issues won't go away after we remove Saddam. The fact that he doesn't address these issues further reinforces the idea that this is all just political.

Alex

We have been "thinking and idealizing" the issue to death for 15 years! What is needed now IS a strong arm.

If the ideals behind removing Saddam are not obvious to you, then you have not been paying much attention to the Middle East in the past decade and a half...Oh, yeah...you're 22...You were probably playing Sega or something when that was going on.

Mike

leathermang · #11 03-04-2003, 01:38 PM

Dieselhead, your statement "unless Saddam backs down" really missreprisents the history of the situation...
Saddam invaded Kuwait, we stopped heading towards HIM because he agreed to disarm, he has refused to follow the agreement for 12 YEARS ...... this should have been taken care of when the inspectors were kicked out during Clinton's term... Bush is just mopping up the situation.
We have professionals to take care of some things which do not need to be shared with everyone for operational reasons.... and some things have to be done ' seat of the pants' with just a guiding philosophy as things develope. There are jobs which you might be qualified to be performing which would allow you to know the answers which you want... but sometimes you have to rely on others doing their job without your direct knowledge of what is happening...

DieselHead · #12 03-04-2003, 01:45 PM

So then I am to understand that no one cares what's going to happen afterwards. People blame Clinton for not acting on Saddam sooner (maybe Bush senior was in the best position to do that?) and for not thinking about our future. Isn't it hypocritical then to say that it doesn't matter what happens to Iraq and the Middle East after Saddam's gone? Afterall, as much as some people hate it, all global affairs affect us and it would be wise to try and preserve the future. But, a man who doesn't care about massive deficit spending probably doesn't care much about the future beyond his natural life. Oh, and I said "unless." I don't think there's much chance that he will back down. But hey, if he did wouldn't it be great? Everyone would win. Bush would get his policy victory, the Iraqi's would have succeed in a bloodless revolution, and even Saddam would probably preserve more than if he had lost in a war.

Alex

mikemover · #13 03-04-2003, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DieselHead
So then I am to understand that no one cares what's going to happen afterwards. People blame Clinton for not acting on Saddam sooner (maybe Bush senior was in the best position to do that?) and for not thinking about our future. Isn't it hypocritical then to say that it doesn't matter what happens to Iraq and the Middle East after Saddam's gone? Afterall, as much as some people hate it, all global affairs affect us and it would be wise to try and preserve the future. But, a man who doesn't care about massive deficit spending probably doesn't care much about the future beyond his natural life. Oh, and I said "unless." I don't think there's much chance that he will back down. But hey, if he did wouldn't it be great? Everyone would win. Bush would get his policy victory, the Iraqi's would have succeed in a bloodless revolution, and even Saddam would probably preserve more than if he had lost in a war.

Alex

No, it would NOT be great if we backed down now, and YES, Bush Sr. should have eliminated Saddam the first time around...leaving him there was a HUGE mistake.

And of course we'll stick around to help rebuild Iraq and stabilize their government...we always do, because unfortunately, we have become the babysitter of every country in the world that can't keep their $h!t together.

Mike

Kuan · #14 03-04-2003, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mikemover
Bush Sr. should have eliminated Saddam the first time around...leaving him there was a HUGE mistake.

Yeah but that was not our choice. It was not "our" war, it was a UN war.

DieselHead · #15 03-04-2003, 02:06 PM

So there was something wrong about acting unitarily then but not now? We should be more consistent. Also, not all countries have the ability to keep themselves together without help. It's not exactly a level playing field.

Alex