---

by Incandenza
Should the US and UK invade Iraq?

---

Do you?

---

by Whistler
[
Do you?

---

On balance, I think yes.

However, I didn't want to set the agenda of the thread beyond a free and open expression of opinions so I decided not to give my opinion up front.

---

by Whistler
(quotes)Do you?

---

Uh, think that should be "Would you?" there

IMHO no. If they do it creates a whole world of trouble (moreso) in the Middle East, and diplomatically speaking it'd be the biggest PR gaffe the West (since when has the US and UK represented the entire West anyway? ) could possibly make. On top of that if it is indeed true that we don't know what weapons capabilities Iraq has, that's tantamount to sending troops in blind with no idea of what they'll be facing.

Meanwhile, countries such as Pakistan and Uzbekistan continue to be on a par with Afghanistan as far as their human rights records go, yet because they don't speak out against the West, they're 'ok'

---

Meanwhile, countries such as Pakistan and Uzbekistan continue to be on a par with Afghanistan as far as their human rights records go, yet because they don't speak out against the West, they're 'ok'

---

I think it's bombing the west Bush doesnt like, not speaking against us.

i dont really know enough to pass judgement on this one. Last time was a fiasco but i wouldnt shed any tears if they did go in.

(edited for spelling)


(Edited by Cat 07/04/2002 18:30)

(Edited by Cat 07/04/2002 18:31)

---

by Spikeo

Uh, think that should be "Would you?" there

---

Ooooooer watch out Inc no going invading Iraq all by yourself now

As to wether the UK and the US should invade Iraq? If they have to then yes, although IMHO this shouldn't even be in question as they should have sorted this out when we had the men the means and the backing to do it during "The Gulf War".

---

by Sweet-Sange
(quotes)Ooooooer watch out Inc no going invading Iraq all by yourself now

---

---

by Cat
I think it's bombing the west Bush doesnt like, not speaking against us

---

The point is that to ignore states like Pakistan etc while trying desperately to hunt down Al Qaeda, attempting to balance out Israel-Palestine, *and* going into Iraq, regardless of what the current feeling is of the Arab states, creates a very real risk of creating another Afghanistan. Short-term gain vs long-term loss?

(Edited by Spikeo 07/04/2002 18:46)

---

by Sweet-Sange
Ooooooer watch out Inc no going invading Iraq all by yourself now

---

Oh, Sange!!

---

by Incandenza
Should the US and UK invade Iraq?

---

---

by Whistler
Do you?

---

---

by Spikeo

Uh, think that should be "Would you?" there

---

---

by Sweet-Sange
Ooooooer watch out Inc no going invading Iraq all by yourself now

---

Why the you said it should have been would you ie: would Inc go and invade Iraq

/me thinks even I got that one

---

by Sweet-Sange
(quotes)

As to wether the UK and the US should invade Iraq? If they have to then yes, although IMHO this shouldn't even be in question as they should have sorted this out when we had the men the means and the backing to do it during "The Gulf War".

---

I'm not sure that it is as simple as to say that it could and should have been finished during the previous war. Militarily, the US led alliance certainly could have taken Baghdad with little trouble. But the operation was only possible with the consent of states in the region, notably Saudi Arabia and they had no appetite for a prolonged war, or a change of regime in Iraq. The other restraint, of course, is that it is not just a matter of getting rid of Saddam Hussein, and pulling out with a job well done and the knowledge that everything will be ok in future. In a country with no democratic traditions, or history of organised politics, it is very hard to imagine a stable, moderate government being able to stay in power without subatantial, long-term outside interferance. And it would be a mistake to assume that whatever government replaced Saddam could not possibly be as bad, or worse.

Im sure it isn't something we will never know .

---

by Incandenza
Should the US and UK invade Iraq?

---

I vote no on this one.

Sadam certainly needs to be watched closely, and his weapons capabilities need to be investigated, but i don't think an open attack is justifiable.

The real reason behind such an attack would be to create another active enemy and therefore justify the huge increase in defense spending.

Depends.

What are the objectives? To remove Saddam Hussein, or the whole Bathist regime? If the whole regime, what will replace it? Will the Kurds be given full autonomy? What of the Shi'ites in the south? Would we just be going in to disrupt any (possible) connection with Al Qaeda, or with ant concern for the well being of the Iraqis? If we generally intend to give the people of Iraq the right to self-government, including succession, then I can get behind the idea. Anything else then forget it.

However, whatever the objective, no military action should be taken now, as to prioritise the problems of Iraq over the atrocities occurring in Palestine would not only be poor judgement, but would also polarise regional opinion against the west utterly. At the moment, the biggest threat to regional stability are the actions of Ariel Sharon and his government. This needs to be addressed before we even consider sneezing near Iraq.

---

by Sweet-SangeWhy the you said it should have been would you ie: would Inc go and invade Iraq

/me thinks even I got that one

---

'Twas a correction of a grammatical error. Inc never said 'Do you think the US and UK should invade Iraq?' so the response of 'Do you?' was incorrect.

Hope that's a little clearer.

Me? Picky?

Yup

Back on topic now, please

In one word: No