Should the US Invade Iraq?

[XM4243]

This is a question that holds a lot of fascination for me.

A while ago, post 9/11 my answer was yes but I read a great article a few weeks ago that said, if you invaded IRAQ now, Saddam would know he was going to lose and would let loose with all of his chemical and/or weapons of mass destruction.

Better to just contain him.

[VuTang]

I would love to comment on this...But afraid that my comments will not be welcome at this time....so I will wait 2 weeks..... :wink:

[Sketcher]

Originally Posted by XM4243

...but I read a great article a few weeks ago that said, if you invaded IRAQ now, Saddam would know he was going to lose and would let loose with all of his chemical and/or weapons of mass destruction.

Better to just contain him.

If that's the case, then I say not. However, the US government would decide to carry it out anyway because war is always good for the economy. I don't know anything about political science or the so-called 'art of war', but this is what everyone is saying. So either whatever the US decides to do, we're screwed either way

[james99]

People felt the same way during the 1930's. The English and French both hoped that little Adolph would be happy with the land he had. The US didn't want to be involved in Europe's war.

Have we learned nothing from our mistakes?

Bush SR. blew the best oppurtunity to destroy the SOB.

The western allies no longer have the support we had 10 years ago. If we did, IRAQ would have been invaded and he would be dead by now.

This being said, there is still no excuse for not invading. Most "experts" fell he is creating weapons far more powerful than the ones he had 10 years ago.

We need to stop him before a mushroom appears over NYC.

[Researcher]

Bush SR. blew the best oppurtunity to destroy the SOB

I wouldn't say he blew it.

At the time, I think most people seeing the carnage on the highway of death wanted the killing stopped. I think public opinion at the time was that the Allies were there to liberate Kuwait not destroy IRAQ and the job was done.

In hindsight, yeah he probably should have finished the job, but who knows what that might have spawned.

I for one don't think its in the US interests right now to bomb Iraq. I think Saddam wants to survive hence I don't think he would sponsor an attempt like that on the US.

If the US launched a strike all those weapons of mass destruction would be aimed at Israel. If Iraq launched something at Israel, then Israel would blow up Iraq which might draw Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia into the fray and then the whole region would be scorched.

[Sketcher]

[quote="Rex"]

If Iraq launched something at Israel, then Israel would blow up Iraq which might draw Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia into the fray and then the whole region would be scorched.

Due to weather currents and the nature of the environment in general, the rest of the world wouldn't survive. Radiation, lack of an ozone layer over most of the planet (so bye bye Eastern hemisphere), and the rest of the world will become one country under the rule of the US. At least that's how I see it.

All because of who? Hm.....

[james99]

Canoe is running similiar poll. Results (so far):

Q1: Would you be in favour of the 'War On Terror' expanding
into Iraq?

Total Votes for this Question: 6348

So far, 52% have voted for Yes.
So far, 39% have voted for No.
So far, 9% have voted for Not sure.

[hugh]

Stockpile oil, U.S. tells allies. Warning seen as sign of early attack on Iraq

From National Post today
Warning seen as sign of early attack on Iraq
http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id={ACED5CD0-A8FD-4C1A-813D-CAA2E3E26DA2}