What action should be taken against Saddam Hussian and Iraq? (No Spam)

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Jun 15, 2002 2:38 am

The one question that has been bothering me. What , if anything, should be done to remedy the problem in Iraq?

The problem being (IMO) Saddam Hussian.

I for one don't want to see US (or NATO) troops going in to solve this. Sadly I have not seen any other solution. The sanctions are not fixing the problem (IMO), they are just making life harder on the people of Iraq. In turn this (IMO) breeds more hate against the West.

What I'm looking for is, Is there an other solution besides war to solve this problem.

And I believe war is on the way. (IMO) The US will decide (or might have already decided) to take him out.
1. He needs to go.
2. Bush will use this for political gains. (Late 2003)
3. If Bush doesn't the next President will have to.

Post- Saddam

Any thoughts or opinions on this?

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Sat Jun 15, 2002 7:14 am

Well, of the whole group that the Bush named "terrorist states", Iraq is the only one where I think they should do something. Again, this War on Terror is mostly just an excuse to attack everyone the US didn't like, but couldn't attack for political reasons.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Sat Jun 15, 2002 7:49 am

I disagree. I don't believe war is going to work. The problem is that if you don't find Saddam, you'll increase the support for him in Iraq and if you do find him (I can't even guess at the bill for the US taxpayers...) he'll be a martyr in the war against the "great evil" (ie the US). Either way, you loose. What the world should do in terms of Iraq is:

1. Start to realise that sanctions would work fine against countries like France, since they have something to loose and are highly intertwined in the global economy. Countries like Iraq, on the other hand, aren't affected the same way. So, lift the sanctions pertaining to all things except weapons.

2. Send in Coca Cola, not bombs. The US is always extremely protectionistic when it comes to their right to trade, but something that would really make a difference in terms of trade relations is not knocking potential customers in the head first.

3. If you want to get rid of Saddam, you need to make him irrelevant. By launching a war against him, you're just boosting his ego. By removing sanctions and starting trade relations, the world could perhaps succeed in opening up Iraq to external influences and reduce Saddams importance.

4. Defocus the US. Iraq vs US is much better for political propaganda and dogmatic thinking than Iraq vs World (UN). This of course is unthinkable, since it won't win Dubbya his next election...

Just my €0.02.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Sat Jun 15, 2002 8:03 am

Hmmm, this got me thinking:

In a choice between what's best for the US industry and what would win Dubbya the next election, which option would rule?

Unfortunately I believe Dubbya's election would win out, but I may just be cynical.

Oh, and the idea that war promotes the US industry is only true for a small part of the industry and at an enormous expense to the US taxpayers.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Sat Jun 15, 2002 8:26 am

I personally think the best option would be to be on the side of the Iraqui people. Something like the SAS did, go for a 'Hearts & Minds' campaign, put relief into the country, give to the people that need it and you gain support inside the country. If Hussein can't give what the US can give to the people, then they will be more allied to the US. Bribery in all senses of the word, but whats cheaper? A full scale war, or providing aid? I think we know the answer...

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Sat Jun 15, 2002 7:52 pm

@Silur:

Nice suggestions. I'd bet they have more of a chance for success than the usual U.S. military action, which, by the way - having been in the US military myself during the 1990-93 Desert Shield/Storm thing-a-majiggy - is nothing but a political gesture aimed at gaining popular support on the domestic front. Wars bring Presidents approval, especially if the one warred upon is made to look as evil as possible.

I believe that economic means are the key to dealing with problems in the world today. And I don't mean sanctions, either - the introduction of trade into Iraq would be a brilliant maneuver, IMO. Hussein might find himself in a more restrained position, forced to abandon most of his usual rhetoric. Bringing prosperity to Iraq would definitely do more to undermine Saddam Hussein's power than a protracted military conflict ever could hope to gain. The losses inflicted upon the Iraqi people would be terrible, and unthinkable.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jun 18, 2002 7:10 am

@Weasel, I think deposing, capturing or killing Hussain could have terrible repercussions in the midEast. It would lose America many of its allies in the area. It would create a still more prominent spur to fundamentalist terrorism. It would leave a power vacuum that will be fought over by several major internal factions and at least three of Iraq's most powerful neighbors. It would leave an unchecked Iran riding triumphantly as the major economic broker in the region. It would engage the US' involvement for years to come as an unofficial protectorate.

I'm surprised by the Bush Administration's announcement of sending CIA teams to take out Hussain. This has, after all, been discussed as the quiet agenda of the CIA for several years. Is Bush trying to simply put more pressure on Hussain? Is Bush simply trying to look more hawkish in public, to gain more political benefit from this move?

CM · Post by CM » Tue Jun 18, 2002 8:02 am

Awww...kill the sodding bastard and get it over with. Don't send in the armed forces. Send in a blacks ops unit, poision his food, or give the old git a heart attack. You guys did it during the cold war. Do so again. I for one will be greatful the US took out that ************.

The US will lose allies how? They would be happy, as then the people couldn't blame them for siding with the butcher of the kuwaiti people or of his own people. The people hate saddam as much as they hate the US. Take him out in a covert op. Let the media guess around, issue leaks which could blame, Al-Qaeda to Hamas to the Irani Govt. Either way blame some one from the region. The people will be euphoric.

There will be political instabilit in the nation. That is when you send in the UN, with weapons inspectors to take care of any (there shouldn't be any) weapons.

But before you do any of this. Stop the bloody sanctions. They are killing more people than Saddam has in his 20 year rule.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Jun 18, 2002 8:12 am

Saddam Hussein is being propped up by two things: the iron fist that he uses to hold on to power, but also the popular support that he garners every time the US attacks Iraq. Think of the popular approval bounce Dubya got after 11 September; Saddam gets the same thing each time we bomb something in Iraq. He controls the media, so he controls what the Iraqi people know (or don't know). When he says that the Great American Satan is attack the Iraqi people, who is going to say otherwise?

Deposing Saddam Hussein carries with it a number of risks, the most notable of which is regional destabilisation. There is no mechanism for elections in Iraq, no opposition and no clear successor. If Saddam Hussein were to die (or be assassinated) today, the country would descend into anarchy because the various factions, which Hussein keeps under his tight control, would be unleashed and probably lead to a civil war.

I think that Dubya announcing that he has ordered the CIA to step up operations against Saddam Hussein is a ploy to garner support for Republicans going into the mid-term elections. Aside from that, it serves no purpose other than to make Hussein's bodyguards nervous.

Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, but do we want to deal with the devil we know or years of bloodshed and civil war in the Persian Gulf region?

CM · Post by CM » Tue Jun 18, 2002 8:37 am

If you send in troops or bomb the country. The american govt will get no support from the people or nations, as the american govt is hurting innocent people. However if it was a simple manuver to get rid of Saddam, that would make the people very happy.

That of course will leave a power vaccum within the country, but neither Turkey nor Syria have any desire to capture iraq, as they will be caputring kurdish land. Which of these two countries needs more them?

The saudis have no army to speak of, so how could they conquer iraq? Kuwait too small to do anything. The only nation that is there that could pose a problem would be Iran. But with significant pressure even they can see it would be a bad thing.

Internally it would be bad as their would be no leader. But heck that would be better then having Saddam there.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Tue Jun 18, 2002 9:17 am

Originally posted by fable
@Weasel, I think deposing, capturing or killing Hussain could have terrible repercussions in the midEast. It would lose America many of its allies in the area. It would create a still more prominent spur to fundamentalist terrorism.

I can agree with most of what your saying. Except the Allies part. I would call them "Oil Partners". If not for oil I doupt the US would be in the middle east. Which I cannot say nothing about oil, my job depends on it.

Originally posted by fable
It would leave a power vacuum that will be fought over by several major internal factions and at least three of Iraq's most powerful neighbors. It would leave an unchecked Iran riding triumphantly as the major economic broker in the region.

Iran, IMHO the country that has all to win in the case of Hussain being "wacked".

Originally posted by fable
It would engage the US' involvement for years to come as an unofficial protectorate.

Nation building..something I am against.

Originally posted by fable I'm surprised by the Bush Administration's announcement of sending CIA teams to take out Hussain. This has, after all, been discussed as the quiet agenda of the CIA for several years. Is Bush trying to simply put more pressure on Hussain? Is Bush simply trying to look more hawkish in public, to gain more political benefit from this move? [/b]

I hope your right, I just have a bad feeling it's neither.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jun 18, 2002 9:54 am

Iran, IMHO the country that has all to win in the case of Hussain being "wacked".

Not really. They know the parameters of an Iraq controlled by Hussain. An Iraq controlled and/or funded by any powerful non-Arab nation would horrify them--let alone the US. It would also play into the hands of hardliners who have always claimed that the US is only interested in setting up puppet regimes (like the Shah) to get very cheap oil. This was, in fact, the case with Iran. Taking over Iraq would be the kind of evidence they need to silence their own moderates, and convince many of their neighbors. But they'd hate the fact of its happening, as I see it, all the same.

I can agree with most of what your saying. Except the Allies part. I would call them "Oil Partners". If not for oil I doupt the US would be in the middle east. Which I cannot say nothing about oil, my job depends on it.

The ties between the US and Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan (at least) are rather closer than that. There's a lot of diplomatic contact on all levels, regular trading agreements, loans, military support, etc. If the Israel/Palestine Problem vanished magically tomorrow, these countries might have the kind of "best buddy" ties that the US tries reasonably enough (at least, until this last administration) to foster in various areas of the globe. But although the heads of the various nations are strongly sympathetic to the US, they can only dictate policy to their people so far. (Ever wondered when the US abandoned its "democratize the midEast?" It happened as soon as we realized what kind of government such electorates would choose.) If the opposition to us was overwhelming--as I'm convinced it would be throughout the midEast following an Iraqi invasion--friendly leaders would be forced to downgrade relations, at the least.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:36 am

IMO, leave Saddam alone.

Any strat of attack will open possibilities of retaliation.
It is a matter of time until this guy got a A-bomb or something worst.
China and France sell lots of weapons to him.
People in Iraq love him.
Iraq is a independent nation, with army and weapons.
Saddam is one of the most Important and influent man of the world.

In other words, It will be very very very diferent than the War against Taleban.

If I was Bush, for the weath of his country, I will leave Saddam alone, and stop talking in attacks or such things.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:43 am

The cynical side of me says that Dubya is prepping the American public for a "Gulf War II: This Time We Take Saddam Down" in the middle of 2004 if it looks like he needs a popularity bounce going into the election. Of course, no politician would ever use the military for their own personal gain . . .