PDA

View Full Version : The Three Reasons America Must Invade Iraq



TomBrooklyn
03-10-2003, 10:48 AM
President Bush, in a special TV broadcast carried on all the major networks last week cited three reasons why we might need to invade Iraq.

1. To force Iraqi compliance with the UN Resolution on disarmament.
2. To forward progress on the war on terrorism.
3. To relieve the oppressed citizens of Iraq.

Item one sounded like the best reason to me. However, the UN is not supporting this initiative. What is the purpose of the UN if any country can cite UN Resolutions to take it upon themselves to do what they want in actual opposition to the UN?

Wouldn't this action tend to undermine rather than enhance the credibility of the United Nations, in any of it's future endeavors to resolve conflict and maintain world peace?

Item two is baffling to me. As far as I know, there are no known links between terrorist activities in America and Iraq. While the President's post 9/11 pledge to hold any country that harbors terrorists as America's enemy makes sense, can anti-terrorism now be used as an reason to invade a foreign country without any evidence? Isn't this hypocrisy on an international scale in violation of a belief that America holds dear unto itself, namely the 4th Amendment to the Constitution which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Also, wouldn't a second rate power like Iraq be likely to consider terrorism against US Civilians on US soil as one of the viable options it has to counter an invasion by the world's greatest Superpower? Do Americans expect a foreign nation or their allies to tolerate a violation of human and soverign rights that America would not dare to perpetrate on it's own citizens?

Iraq cannot win against the United States in a conventional war, although many Iraqi citizens may courageously be willing to die trying. Wouldn't a poorly justified invasion of this primarily Moslem country create or add to the motivation of Islamic militants based outside Iraq to engage in terrorist activities against the US? Is it wise to kick all sleeping dogs rather than clearly identify the violent dogs and neutralize them selectively? Couldn't an invasion cause the very thing to happen that we are ostensibly going there to prevent?

Item three was truly mind boggling. Since when did America inherit the job of alleviating oppressed citizenry in other counties? Is that in our Constitution somewhere?

I don't even think most Iraqi citizens want to be liberated. It's been reported that Saddam Hussain has distributed firearms to a million of it's citizens to oppose US invading troops. Does this sound like a people that want to be "liberated"?

In the meantime, fiscally, while the US Military Budget is larger than most of the rest of the of the world combined, aren't many States facing severe budget crises in this and next fiscal year? Isn't Social Security predicted to go bankrupt within 25 years unless major changes are inacted? Aren't US citizens already paying huge percentages of their earnings in income and other taxes?

Rich R.
03-10-2003, 11:01 AM
Tom, you make some excellent points.

I have also heard a lot on the news lately about President Bush saying how great Iraq we be, with U.S. help, after Saddam is removed from power.
Before the President helps Iraq, he should take a ride around his own neighborhood. I know for a fact, there are many U.S. citizens sleeping outside on heating grates, within two blocks of the White House. Maybe he should be a little more worried about helping them.

SpiderMan
03-10-2003, 12:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TomBrooklyn:</font><hr>
President Bush, in a special TV broadcast carried on all the major networks last week cited three reasons why we might need to invade Iraq.

1. To force Iraqi compliance with the UN Resolution on disarmament.
2. To forward progress on the war on terrorism.
3. To relieve the oppressed citizens of Iraq.

Item one sounded like the best reason to me. However, the UN is not supporting this initiative. What is the purpose of the UN if any country can cite UN Resolutions to take it upon themselves to do what they want in actual opposition to the UN?

Wouldn't this action tend to undermine rather than enhance the credibility of the United Nations, in any of it's future endeavors to resolve conflict and maintain world peace?
<hr /></blockquote>

I guess I'm no fan of the UN either. I'd prefer that we quite pouring money into it and quit letting second-rate european countries have a veto on what we feel should be our course of action.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TomBrooklyn:</font><hr>
Item three was truly mind boggling. Since when did America inherit the job of alleviating oppressed citizenry in other counties? Is that in our Constitution somewhere? Aren't many States facing severe budget crises in this and next fiscal year? Aren't people already paying huge percentages of their earnings in income and other taxes?

I don't even think most Iraqi citizens want to be liberated. I heard Saddam has distributed a million firearms to it's citizens to oppose any invading troops. Does this sound like a people that want to be "liberated"?
<hr /></blockquote>

Really - the fact that we have so many guns in our own homes is probably one of the better reasons we'll never be occupied ("liberated"). Who wants to occupy a land where every citizen is a potential sniper/assassin?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TomBrooklyn:</font><hr>
Fiscally, while the US Military is already perhaps ten times more powerful than the next most powerful nation, aren't many States facing severe budget crises in this and next fiscal year? Isn't the Aren't people already paying huge percentages of their earnings in income and other taxes?
<hr /></blockquote>

Agree with this 100%, we shouldn't take it upon ourselves to be the world's policeman. Let Iraq take care of itself. Let Israel take care of itself. Of course, there wouldn't be an Israel very long if we didn't prop it up.

SpiderMan

eg8r
03-10-2003, 01:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
1. To force Iraqi compliance with the UN Resolution on disarmament.
2. To forward progress on the war on terrorism.
3. To relieve the oppressed citizens of Iraq.
<hr /></blockquote> Item 1, I agree, but we will see where the UN stands once the 17th comes around.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tom:</font><hr> Item two baffled me. There are no known links between terrorist activities in America and Iraq. <hr /></blockquote>
There are more links than imaginable. The easiest links would be funds traced backwards from Al Qaeda accounts directly to Iraq. I am sure this is not new news to anyone here. If you are looking for Bush to say, that on that one mission the Iraqis had any involvement you will probably not get an answer. I don't really believe you or any other American truly thinks that once we get rid of the people directly involved with that one instance we will stop. By removing Saddam from control, then there will be no more funds from Iraq (Saddam) to the Al Qaeda. Yes, it will forward our progress on the war.

The main issue with the war is the failure to comply on disarment. I am happy you listed that as number 1. Terror is just the one little battle that is in the spotlight, but hardly the primary call for war.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way they can beat us in a conventional war, although many Iraqi citizens may proudly be willing to die trying. Would invading Iraq possibly cause the very thing to happen that we are ostensibly going there to prevent? <hr /></blockquote> This sounds like you are asking how can we have peace if we are going to war. I don't know if I am reading your post correctly, but, if this is what you are meaning, then I feel that mentality is short sighted. There are a lot of people on the TV that argue peace cannot be had if there is war, and I don't understand. If the problem is removed, even if by force, the result would be a peaceful time. Only to last until the next crazy man comes around.
[ QUOTE ]
Item three was truly mind boggling. Since when did America inherit the job of alleviating oppressed citizenry in other counties? Is that in our Constitution somewhere? <hr /></blockquote> I agree with you completely, but it is quite weak. There are so many things happening in our government right now that is not Constitutional. One HUGE in your face example would be Welfare.

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't people already paying huge percentages of their earnings in income and other taxes? <hr /></blockquote> The proposed budget does not include an increase in taxes to help pay for the war. In contrast Bush is proposing a tax break to all tax paying individuals.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't even think most Iraqi citizens want to be liberated. I heard Saddam has distributed a million firearms to it's citizens to oppose any invading troops. <hr /></blockquote> Did you hear anything about the Iraqi citizens requesting these firearms. How about we interview the citizens that are going to be shot by Iraqi soldiers wearing American uniforms. These poor people are going to be killed in cold blood and made to look like Americans have done this. Saddam's military has already admitted to purchasing military uniforms that look exactly like American and British uniforms. Please tell me how many of these unfortunate unliberated people will agree with you. Another example, how about we interview all the people in the hospitals in Baghdad and ask them if they enjoy the notion that Saddam has set up military bases at the bottom of the hospital in hopes that American bombers will not drop on a hospital. Do you think these people are happy about their ruler, or do you think they feel frightened and do not want the horror to continue.

Usually, Tom, you and I agree, but I am confused with your ideas on the civilians. Do you honestly think we are getting a true visualization on how the Iraqi citizens are living in Iraq when the feed comes from Iraqi news stations. It is an absolute fact that citizens of Iraq are killed if they defy the government. Do you really think these people are mouthing off to the media in defiance of Saddam. I think not.

[ QUOTE ]
Fiscally, while the US Military is already perhaps ten times more powerful than the next most powerful nation, aren't many States facing severe budget crises in this and next fiscal year? <hr /></blockquote>I don't think it is possible to compare a state budget with a Federal budget. [ QUOTE ]
Isn't the Aren't people already paying huge percentages of their earnings in income and other taxes?
<hr /></blockquote> Once again, Federal Income taxes have nothing to do with the state. Once again, Bush is proposing a tax relief plan (which I don't agree with) right now. What this means is that no matter what the war costs, Americans in the near future will not be paying for it.

I am not a big fan of Bush's budget proposal, and his recent history is a great indicator of what happens. When he left Texas this state was in huge debt. I do think he should rethink a lot of the Agencies that he continues to give money to and maybe just eliminate them if not start downsizing them.

eg8r

eg8r
03-10-2003, 01:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Really - the fact that we have so many guns in our own homes is probably one of the better reasons we'll never be occupied ("liberated"). Who wants to occupy a land where every citizen is a potential sniper/assassin? <hr /></blockquote> This is the exact reason England has so many murders and crime problems. In England, they have made it illegal to own guns. There crime rate has shot through the roof.

eg8r

Ross
03-11-2003, 01:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;This is the exact reason England has so many murders and crime problems. In England, they have made it illegal to own guns. There crime rate has shot through the roof.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Eg8r - if you are truly interested in knowing the relative rates of crime across countries, go to the the site http://www.undcp.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7pv.pdf. They list the most current figures available as provided by 82 countries around the world.

At first glance it would seem that England does have a major problem. For OVERALL police reported crime England is very high -10,061/100,000 compared to other countries with reported overall crimes rates many times lower. The US number is bad as well at 8,517/100,000. This statistic about overall reported crime in England is the one being bandied about by pro-gun ownership media.

Unfortunately reported crime rates are hard to compare meaningfully across countries, since they can vary as much due to reporting procedures as due to actual differences in crime. In fact, countries that are more diligent in accurately recording crime (so they can better use their resources to fight it) will likely report higher rates than those that don't. As the UN site notes, these difference arise from a number of different factors, such as:

Deviations in whether an event is considered a crime or not, e.g.: different definitions used in different jurisdictions.
Errors that accumulate along the police recording process
Errors that accumulate along the victim reporting process
Crime is recorded by the police but not reported by victim
Crime is reported by victim but not recorded by the police
A crime happens but is neither recorded by the police nor reported by the victim
Victim reports a crime that never happened (e.g for purposes of insurance fraud)
Police records a crime that never happened (e.g. to attract a higher budget

For that reason, criminologists tend to mistrust cross country crime rate comparisons. The exception is the more egregious crimes, which are more likely to be consistently reported. The most reliable statistic is believed to be murder rates. It is hard to significantly undercount or overcount murders unless outright fraud is occurring.

By that comparison, England/Wales is doing very well indeed. The murder rate per 100,000 in 1999 was 1.45 which is one lower rates of the 82 countries surveyed. This compares to a reported murder rate of 4.55/100,000 in the US. That is, the US has THREE TIMES AS MANY MURDERS per capita as England.

Given that murder is a fairly serious crime /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif, and the US sucks in this comparison, I would say that there may be arguments for gun ownership, but looking at crime rates in England is not one of the better ones. In fact, the data suggests just the opposite.

I am NOT trying to start up the pro-gun vs. anti-gun debate. In my experience that debate never ends and no one is ever convinced I just wanted to point out that it is important to look at the actual data and not trust the media to interpret it, whenever possible.

bluewolf
03-11-2003, 06:08 AM
The reason to invade iraq is because we dont like sad am hussy /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Laura

eg8r
03-11-2003, 06:47 AM
I tried the link, but it did not work.

Since I could not read the stats, will you check and let me know of the rate of increase over the past 10 years. I would think it would start increasing rapidly compared to just a few years prior. This is the time when England banned the private ownership, and not until the last couple years did the English government decide to really enforce the rule (thus the increased crime rate with guns).

Another point that you bring up without saying it is the time when a crime happened but no one was hurt. If no one was shot and injured or killed, then the crime is listed simply as a robbery or what not. What is ignored is the fact that the robbery took place at gun point. This simple example is not counted in those statistics however it is a serious gauranteed problem. Good citizens obey the laws and do not have guns, criminals do not obey the laws and carry guns.

Whether or not this is strong or otherwise, take a second to think about it. If the citizens are not carrying guns around because they follow the law, then what are the criminals doing.

You are right, this is not a gun debate, and I am not sure where you stand (unless you stated it and there is a good chance I missed it), however all the anti-gun lobbyists are for the most part liars and hypocrites. I forget the Democrats name that is anti gun, and pushing it pretty heavily, who on a regular basis goes to the gun range and shoots his private guns. Then when a person was shot and killed in Miami, this same congressman goes on record stating that the manufacturer of the gun should be liable for damages and should quit manufacturing weapons to kill. While lobbying his position, his ads show a pic of a man's hand holding the gun and shooting it. Well, Matt Drudge found that picture and when blown up to reveal the shooter it is the congressman himself. What a hypocrite.

Rosie O'Donnell is another good example. She is anti-gun but requires her bodygaurd to carry a gun to protect her. What a joke. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-11-2003, 07:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TomBrooklyn:</font><hr>
President Bush, in a special TV broadcast carried on all the major networks last week cited three reasons why we might need to invade Iraq.

1. To force Iraqi compliance with the UN Resolution on disarmament.
2. To forward progress on the war on terrorism.
3. To relieve the oppressed citizens of Iraq.

Item one sounded like the best reason to me. However, the UN is not supporting this initiative. What is the purpose of the UN if any country can cite UN Resolutions to take it upon themselves to do what they want in actual opposition to the UN?

Wouldn't this action tend to undermine rather than enhance the credibility of the United Nations, in any of it's future endeavors to resolve conflict and maintain world peace?

<font color="blue">Screw the UN. The only reason we even asked them for permission was to make our actions look a little better in world opinion. I like what Bush said the other night (paraphrasing) "We don't need permission from the UN or anybody else. </font color>

Item two is baffling to me. As far as I know, there are no known links between terrorist activities in America and Iraq.

<font color="blue">Mohammed Atta was photographed in 2001 in Prague meeting with a high-ranking Iraqi official. </font color>

While the President's post 9/11 pledge to hold any country that harbors terrorists as America's enemy makes sense, can anti-terrorism now be used as an reason to invade a foreign country without any evidence? Isn't this hypocrisy on an international scale in violation of a belief that America holds dear unto itself, namely the 4th Amendment to the Constitution which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

<font color="blue">Sorry, 9/11 changed everything. Patience with Iraq will now result in our suicide. </font color>

Also, wouldn't a second rate power like Iraq be likely to consider terrorism against US Civilians on US soil as one of the viable options it has to counter an invasion by the world's greatest Superpower? Do Americans expect a foreign nation or their allies to tolerate a violation of human and soverign rights that America would not dare to perpetrate on it's own citizens?

Iraq cannot win against the United States in a conventional war, although many Iraqi citizens may courageously be willing to die trying. Wouldn't a poorly justified invasion of this primarily Moslem country create or add to the motivation of Islamic militants based outside Iraq to engage in terrorist activities against the US? Is it wise to kick all sleeping dogs rather than clearly identify the violent dogs and neutralize them selectively? Couldn't an invasion cause the very thing to happen that we are ostensibly going there to prevent?

Item three was truly mind boggling. Since when did America inherit the job of alleviating oppressed citizenry in other counties? Is that in our Constitution somewhere?

I don't even think most Iraqi citizens want to be liberated. It's been reported that Saddam Hussain has distributed firearms to a million of it's citizens to oppose US invading troops. Does this sound like a people that want to be "liberated"?

<font color="blue">For Pete's sake Tom. Of course they wanna be liberated. Have you lost your mind?

I guaran-dam-tee Saddam did not pass out weapons to civilians. More likely he confiscated civilian weapons just like every other totalitarian regime.

I'll say it one more time. The Americans will be greeted with open arms. The only problem will be a shortage of white flags. </font color>

In the meantime, fiscally, while the US Military Budget is larger than most of the rest of the of the world combined, aren't many States facing severe budget crises in this and next fiscal year? Isn't Social Security predicted to go bankrupt within 25 years unless major changes are inacted? Aren't US citizens already paying huge percentages of their earnings in income and other taxes?

<font color="blue">What price can you put on American lives? You'll never see an armored car in a funeral procession. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Ken
03-11-2003, 08:51 AM
1. Saddam has chemical and biological agents that he would love to give to anyone who would use them against the United States. Wouldn't you be angry if we destroyed your army, devastated your country and made you leave Kuwait? I supppose we could wait until they are driving around Manhatten trailing anthrax like the mosquito men spraying in Florida.

2. Saddam is known to be a mass murderer of innnocent people that he doesn't like or he mistrusts. Does that mean that the life of even one U. S. soldier should be put at risk? Probably not a good reason.

3. Saddam is proven to give financial support and incentive to terrorists. This has resulted in the deaths of many Israelis and who knows what other terrorist acts. Is there enough here to justify the loss of even one U. S. soldier? Again, possibly not a good reason.

We could abandon the middle east and move our forces over to Japan to opppose N. Korea. The fact is, however, that none of the above reasons applies to the N. Korean dictator, as far as I know. I imagine he's had some people killed and tortured but I don't know that he is a mass murderer. He has plenty of nasty weapons that he sells to people we don't like but we sell plenty to people he doesn't like. That's just business.

I think it would be better to send everyone to Spain and, with Britain, attack France from two fronts. All that wine and cheese is far more expensive than middle eastern oil and they'll keep selling the oil anyway. Also, Venezuela could use some nation building and their oil is a lot closer. Nice beaches, too.
KenCT

Ross
03-11-2003, 09:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I tried the link, but it did not work...

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Eg8r - Try http://www.undcp.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7pv.pdf
(The period at the end of the sentence accidentally attached itself to the url I posted previously.)

Kato
03-11-2003, 10:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr>
I think it would be better to send everyone to Spain and, with Britain, attack France from two fronts.<hr /></blockquote>

I like that plan. France would definitely be an easier target. They'd surrender quickly enough though.

Kato

eg8r
03-11-2003, 11:56 AM
Thank you for the link. I never even bothered to look at the link before, but I should have seen the error.

Like I thought, this data does not go back far enough to show a change. The data only goes back to 1998, and the change happened at or near this time. I say change, however I mean enforcement.

This data also, does not account for the robberies that were not tried and convicted based on the use of weapons, only based on the fact that there was an actual robbery (put in what ever type of crime you want). The only reason why I bring this up is because there are plenty of robberies, rape, etc that involve guns, but the incident is not listed in the gun statistic because no one was shot and injured or killed. The data is skewed and does not reflect all crimes that happen with a gun. This does not even take into account the other reporting failures.

I find it hard to argue a 1 to 1 correlation. In most if not all areas that have outlawed private ownership of guns, crime has increased. It happens and it is documented.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-11-2003, 12:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr>
....I think it would be better to send everyone to Spain and, with Britain, attack France from two fronts. All that wine and cheese is far more expensive than middle eastern oil and they'll keep selling the oil anyway. Also, Venezuela could use some nation building and their oil is a lot closer. Nice beaches, too.
KenCT <hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Hell for that matter maybe we should just take Mexico. Half of their country already lives here anyway. Great beaches, great food, cheap Corona and Cuervo, this is sounding better all the time.