Should the U.S. and it's allies take military action for a "regime change" in Iraq

Closed Thread
View Poll Results: Should the U.S. and it's allies take military action for a "regime change" in Iraq
Yes 8 16.00%
No 40 80.00%
Don't know 2 4.00%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

#1 Sep 5th, 2002, 04:45
Join Date:
Aug 2001
Location:
New Joisey for now
Posts:
1,754
  • indiamike is offline
#1
Do you feel that the U.S. and it's allies should take military action for a "regime change" in Iraq?
#2 Sep 5th, 2002, 06:24
Join Date:
May 2002
Location:
In a shed.
Posts:
26
  • Barry is offline
#2
What's a "regime change"?
Is that like an oil change?
#3 Sep 5th, 2002, 17:35
Join Date:
Oct 2001
Location:
Planet Earth
Posts:
167
  • pkalra is offline
#3

OIL

I need OIL , lets call it Regime change !!!!!
#4 Sep 5th, 2002, 20:30
Join Date:
Feb 2002
Location:
india
Posts:
269
  • indiawise is offline
#4
I would say no immediately. However the americans plea\fear is that saddam is working on developing weapons that would then be supplied to the terrorists. To a large extent that fear is justified looking a the scenario today.
The question that comes to mind is that whilst the us may have to do what-ever it needs to do or deems fit today to get out of the soup it is in..But the question is HAVE THE AMERICANS FIGURED OUT THAT its been their policies and etc..thats created a lot of the situation today. And if they have then will this generation of americans pass on the wisdom to the next and newer generations of americans. I doubt it.
#5 Sep 5th, 2002, 20:50
Join Date:
Aug 2001
Location:
Southampton UK
Posts:
1,865
  • Alan D is offline
#5

Democracy?

What suspicious minds we all have. Why can't we believe George and Tony when they tell us that they want to remove an evil dictator and put a more democratic regime in his place?

Well, maybe it's because we are not used to this novel new idea. Particularly, why now? Saddam has been reasonably quiet of late, probably too involved manufacturing his biological weapons. So what? We have weapons also, capable of taking out Iraq in a few minutes, but we aren't going to use them, are we? Nor can he, without disasterous consequences for Iraq. Saddam may be bad, but is he mad?

Blair promised the people of Britain on tv last night that he would reveal "the evidence" against Saddam Hussein "in a few weeks". I wouldn't mind betting that Bush will be doing the same to the American people at roughly the same time. I would also bet that the "evidence" that Saddam Hussein was involved in the WTC attack will be pretty thin.

I think you guys above have it-----OIL. The same reason we went in last time, to support the "democratic" state of Kuwait.

I really hope this doesn't happen.
#6 Sep 6th, 2002, 05:52
Join Date:
Feb 2002
Location:
New Zealand
Posts:
60
  • tracyprier is offline
#6
I would be willing to bet that something like the following conversation has taken place in the Bush homestead...

GS (George senior): You're going to have to sort this Saddam guy out son.

GW: Well dammit Pop, why didn't you let Norman sort the bastard out when he had the chance!

GS: Well son, we didn't have a mandate from the UN for that.

GW: And....! since when did that ever stop us!
India...Wild At Heart
#7 Sep 6th, 2002, 09:50
USA1 Future Member
Posts:
n/a
#7

Thumbs up Absolutely The US & It's Allies Should Crush Saddam

President Bush stated that the US will go after terrorist, those that harbor terrorists, and those that fund terrorists. Saddam Hussein is not only funding terrorists, he's helping them create weapons of mass destruction. I might also add that Saddam signed a pledge of NOT to create weapons of mass destruction or biological weapons.

If our US allies don't join us, the US should crush Iraq and any other evil nation that steps in its way.

Like President Bush said, you're either with us or against us.


My non-US friends, Sept 11 occurred here in the US, wait until it happens in your back-yard, then we'll see how pissed off you are.

The US is the only super-power left in the world. It's up to us to keep rogue nations in line, most of our 'so called allies' are week and scared of what the rest of the world thinks. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. Good is good and bad is bad.
#8 Sep 6th, 2002, 15:18
Join Date:
Aug 2001
Location:
In between it all
Posts:
1,259
  • IVAN is offline
#8

A Complex Question

First lets examine why Saddam wasn't removed the first time, during the Kuwait war. The reason, in my opinion, was that the US didn't wan't too much stability in the region at that time. The installation of a democratic government in Iraq would have been a step in the direction of locals taking effective control of the region and its resources.
There exist certain unificating tendencies in the Arab world, and if the local regimes were replaced by democracies, those tendencies would have more chances to succeed, maybe creating some sort of European-Union like entity in the long term, which was (and still is) seen as a threat. So far the US did manage the region by controled instability.

However, due to known events, the philosophy and the whole perspective has changed. There has been a reasessment of potential dangers, not only short term, but also long term.
It appears that decisions have been made to "sort out" the problems of the region once and for all. Some people realised that their policy so far was "irresponsible" and limited in scope: just some sort of sophisticated crisis managment, but still a sort of laxism unprepared to really see what needs to be done for the long term.
Thinking long term is a good thing, the question is "did they get it right?" and "could they **** up?"

One could ask if the US have the moral right to "sort out" the region, are they the ones that are morally abilitated to do it?
Of course not, but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter because from a historical perspective only the effects count.
The only question is what "sorting out" means in the heads of the present US administration? What is the "master plan", did they get it right and what will the final consequences be? Will they get a constructive stability or will they **** up? And they could **** up short term if the situation gets out of hand or they could **** up long term if they don't understand that local aspirations have to express themselves and not be repressed.

The responsible policy would be proactive and even in advance compared to the concepts present among arab unificators themselves. If the US wants stability, it should "lead" those tendencies, propose solutions that would lead to a more stable unified world, not react to or try to suppress present energies.
What the US should do is to channel those energies, offer new concepts to them that would eventually produce a positive non conflictual compromise for everybody.

This kind of leading concept requires indeed a paradigmatic conceptual jump. The question is, did they make it?

If they did, and got it right, plans against Saddam could be a good thing if they fit into such well thought responsible long term plan.
On the other hand, if it comes down to an "ad hoc" concept of action of the type "we'll figure it out as we go", all kind of things could go wrong (I don't even mention the implications of the case of the "greedy concept" still completely in place)
My concern is that the present US administration got it only half right and that remains of an "ad hoc", historically non-comprehensive policy still plays a big role. But I don't have enough info to be certain.

So my answer is "yes" if they understood what really needs to be done long term, and figured out the short term equation too (extremely important).
But if it is just half cooked in their heads (as I am affraid) major **** up opportunities ahead.
** Humor is Freedom **
Last edited by IVAN; Sep 6th, 2002 at 15:48..
#9 Sep 6th, 2002, 15:20
Join Date:
Aug 2001
Location:
In between it all
Posts:
1,259
  • IVAN is offline
#9

Talking PG

So Mike, what's the PG rating of your forum?

And btw. what's your own opinion?
Last edited by IVAN; Sep 6th, 2002 at 15:54..
#10 Sep 6th, 2002, 19:02
Join Date:
Aug 2001
Location:
Southampton UK
Posts:
1,865
  • Alan D is offline
#10

USA1

It has happened in my own back-yard. I have seen my home town, and others, in Northern Ireland taken apart by powerful car-bombs and people killed and injured. A lot of this was funded from the United States with your Government taking no action to stop it.

Now that your country has been a victim of terrorism you know how it feels and want to strike back in anger, but if you can't get to the right people then someone else will do. How many innocent civilians do you think might die in a major attack on Iraq, less than 4000 or more than that?

Would that even things up--4000 innocent civilians for 4000 innocent civilians?

I know that in this country, there is only minority support for this kind of attack and I fear that Tony Blair will not recall Parliament for a vote.

I have no sympathy for Saddam Hussein. His treatment of minority groups like the Kurds inside Iraq has been vicious but I fear that an all out attack on Iraq might also, in time, produce another generation of terrorists in the Middle East.

There are underlying problems in the area that need solving--the conflict in Israel being the main one.

The attack on the WTC was a crime against humanity, perpetrated by cold blooded killers. Using patience and intelligence they should be brought to justice. At the same time we have to try to understand what their motivation was to stop it happening again.

Sorry, I can't see things in black and white and I have never believed that "you are either for us or against us". There are many positions between these pairs of opposites.
#11 Sep 7th, 2002, 04:22
Join Date:
Aug 2001
Location:
New Joisey for now
Posts:
1,754
  • indiamike is offline
#11

Re: PG

Quote:
Originally posted by IVAN
So Mike, what's the PG rating of your forum?

And btw. what's your own opinion?
Hi Ivan, sorry about the pg rating. Only two words are censored and you hit one of them.

My opinion is "on the fence" so to speak. I voted "no" on the poll and personally don't believe that war/violence is a solution for anything.

After having lunch today with a firefighter who was at the WTC on 9/11 he almost convinced me when he said "what are you going to do, wait until one of our cities gets nuked and then take care of the problem. "

I agree with Alan, in his post when he said "I can't see things in black and white and I have never believed that "you are either for us or against us". There are many positions between these pairs of opposites."

War is never an answer and a human life is worth more than any oil or gold in the world. The problem is just trying to convince people of that.

Mike
#12 Sep 7th, 2002, 07:10
Join Date:
May 2002
Location:
In a shed.
Posts:
26
  • Barry is offline
#12
To Quote Alan D.
---
The attack on the WTC was a crime against humanity, perpetrated by cold blooded killers. Using patience and intelligence they should be brought to justice. At the same time we have to try to understand what their motivation was to stop it happening again.
------

Less than 3000 people died in the attack on the world trade center. More than 4000 have died (so far) in the Afghanistan invasion. More than 2 million have died (so far) by sanctions on Iraq imposed by the USA.

Who are the cold blooded killers?
I understand the motivation from both sides, oil/economic gains and freedom from fascism/tyranny.

I will ask the obvious question..
Why was Saddam Hussein Americas best friend when he was bombing Iran? But when he went for Kuwait he was branded as evil?
#13 Sep 7th, 2002, 08:30
Join Date:
Sep 2001
Location:
Canada
Posts:
1,316
  • abracax is offline
#13
The Union Carbide explosion in Bhopal was equivalent to two September 11 attacks in a single day, with years of attendant suffering similar to the fallout from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. If Americans should change anything in the world, it is their own sorry lack of sympathy and sense of history. Bush the First had Saddam in his sights and let him slip away in favour of a flattering body count (40 Yanks killed by one SCUD and assorted friendly fire versus uncounted thousands of Iraqi civilians and Republican Guards), and Bush the Younger knows he won't get off that easy this time. But you know, the rednecks are just that het up about killing somebody, and since I share a border with them I'd just as soon they sail off to someplace warm.
New home for my photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/abracax/
#14 Sep 7th, 2002, 15:08
Join Date:
Aug 2001
Location:
In between it all
Posts:
1,259
  • IVAN is offline
#14

Arrow The Chinese Peasant

Oil? Yes it is about oil, but not just oil, not just securing oil at its basic level.
Oil is the reason why the region is important in the first place, and there is no way around that.

This world and its economy is a world of interests: All actors are motivated by interests, the question is whether those interests will be met in a wise way creating long term stability and prosperity for all or will the representatives of those various interests mismanage and create short term or long term instability that could blow in our collective faces some day.

There is no doubt that the US had a very narrow minded policy in the region, narrow in scope and narrow in concept of interests. Basically, the "controled instability" model used so far was a very primitive non comprehensive one. A short term, short sighted policy that dismissed possible long term negative and outright dangerous outcomes.

Now those outcomes surfaced with a bang, and it seems that the realisation came that a comprehensive policy had to replace the old primitive one.
Did they get it right this time or is the new "comprehensiveness" still a narrow, short sighted concept of interests is still unclear.

Interests exist and will always exist, this is what moves this world. Wisdom is to create a system that will channel those energies in a constructive way, productive for all the interested, or will it be chaos leading to God knows what in the end.

I voted "I don't know" in the poll, because I don't know what the US administration really thinks and plans in the long term and how the removal of Saddam would exactly fit into such long term plan, if there is one.

My concern exists at the level of final outcome. You all probably know the story of the Chinese peasant whose son caught a wild horse, then broke his leg trying to tame him and then didn't have to go to war like the rest of the young men on account of his broken leg. Many parameters are unknown to be able to answer if an attack on Saddam right now would have a positive outcome in the future. And the most important parameters are what is the real long term concept of the US, is it a broad or a narrow one.

Lives? Yes many innocent lives could be lost and most of them non-American. However, if the interests conflicting in the region (including the American ones) are not sorted out in a constructive productive way, it has the potential to create infinitely more deaths in the future.

It is important to understand that this is not an argument in favor of this specific planned atack on Iraq and Saddam removal, but in favor of the necessity of a totally comprehensive broad long term policy that would completely change the givens of the region's situation.
This is an imperative necessity in my opinion, and not only for the security of Americans but maybe for the future of mankind itself.

Many people who would otherwise understand that something has imperatively to be done are rebuked by the idea that the US should be the one to do it, particularly since it had a heavy hand in the creation of the problems in the first place.
Well, since there is no neutral higher power to do it (and the UN isn' it), only an interested party can do it, with all the dangers that it implies. The only chance is that the US begun to understand its own interests in a much more broader sense than before.
There are some indications that the concept is broader now, but also disturbing indications that it might not be broad and comprehensive enough.

In the final analysis, whatever the concepts and motivations are, it is, like in the old's Chinese story, very difficult to say if an attack on Iraq now would be a good or bad thing. It could precipitate our end or save our collective asses (hope its not the second word, Mike ).
Last edited by IVAN; Sep 9th, 2002 at 20:27..
#15 Sep 10th, 2002, 21:11
Join Date:
Aug 2001
Location:
In between it all
Posts:
1,259
  • IVAN is offline
#15

Considerations

There is no doubt in my mind that the US screwed up (sorry Mike) in the past with a narrow, short sighted non comprehensive policy, and the results of that "successful" policy became apparent to the eyes of the whole world a year ago.
However, the legacy of this policy is what it is, and has to be dealt with, no matter what caused it.

There is talk these days that Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities might not be what the US claims them to be.
In my opinion, the US is doing a poor job insisting on the claim of an immediate Iraqi military threat when the issue is someting entirely different.
As long as regimes as Saddam's subsist, organisations like Al Quaeda or potential others will have logistic and other support.
This is what the US should insist on.

Things being what they are, a dirty bomb (dispersing radio active material over a large area) making a key metropolis practically inhabitable is not an impossible eventuality at all.

People generally don't realise how fragile a world economic system based on trust is (stocks, bonds, financial markets etc...).
A relatively small blow like the virtual destruction of New York could start to rip off this network of interconnections and if a few key world cities were incapacitated, the world economy, as it is, would crumble.
Global economy is already walking on edge. There is surprisingly little security clearance due to everybody's desire to squeeze out the maximum of every venture, making almost everybody endebted and near the red line.

My guess is that if something serious happened to the world economic system, many, many people would die or seriously suffer troughout the world from indirect repercussions.
Closed Thread

Similar Threads

Title, Username, & Date Last Post Replies Views Forum
Deepa Mehta's "Water" wows Toronto Film Fest Apr 9th, 2006 17:36 8 4207 Books, Music, and Movies
Rajat Kapoor of "Monsoon Wedding" Fame Spams for Funds Jan 3rd, 2003 05:39 2 4546 India Travel News and Commentary


Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules»
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2
© IndiaMike.com 2018
Page Load Success