If we don't go to war, what will the rest of the world say? I mean will they take credit for saving the day by stopping American aggression? It is a quandry, we almost have to go so that we can show that the UN does not make up our policy. What do you guys think the ramifications would be if we pulled out of the region, tomorrow? DD
It is a quandry, we almost have to go so that we can show that the UN does not make up our policy. That's a bad, bad reason to put 200,000 American soldiers at risk. In the short-run, it would probably hurt our prestige. In the long-run, it would probably help significantly in terms of our relations with countries all over the world.
What if we pulled out and just said screw all y'all! Pull out and cut 'em off. No imports, no exports. Let Europe and Asia deal with their neighbors. Shut down all military bases in the Middle East. Let Germany, Russia and France protect Israel and whoever else we are protecting. See what they think then.
Pull out and cut 'em off. No imports, no exports. Let Europe and Asia deal with their neighbors. Shut down all military bases in the Middle East. Let Germany, Russia and France protect Israel and whoever else we are protecting. See what they think then. You do realize we have these bases because they benefit US, right? No imports/exports with Europe and Asia? That would absolutely destroy the US economy. We have co-dependent relationships with all these countries - it's not like just they are benefitting from it all.
I'm not really worried about what other countries think. We have to do what is right. If Bush decides he needs to pull out, then he should do so. Although I think Saddam will simply stop cooperating with inspectors and just continue his weapons programs.
Who is paying for those 250,000 troops right now? Are we the only ones footing the bill? If so, why? France and Germany et all have admitted that Saddam is cooperating because of the pressure of the US military, why not tell France and the rest to pony up and send troops to replace the ones we pull back? Let them foot some of the bill of Saddams disarming. Would they send troops to support the USA? DD
The trick is to get enough well-spoken Americans to give the reason war has been averted is because of our insisting that Saddam lives up to U.N. agreements and our willingness to use force, if necessary. Something like this: "Thanks to our willingness to put troops on the line and fight for the security of our nation and all freedom-loving people of the World, Saddam has seen the light and is cooperating with inspectors. We are ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, something that wouldn't have been possible had we not been willing to back up U.N. resolutions with the threat of force. Thankfully, we did not have to go to war. But our being prepared to do so made the difference." That way, we make it appear that we're not going to war because our willingness to go to war has made Saddam see the light. War is no longer necessary because we made sure the UN Resolutions were followed (whether that's true or not). You have to do your best to not make it appear that we're not going to war because of the opposition to it. It has to look, as best as possible, like it was our choice to not go to war because our objectives were met - whether that's true or not. It's the old, declare victory and move on scenario.
The question is skewed because you don't say why we don't go to war. If we don't go to war because Saddam and his regime go into exile, we have actually pulled off a best case scenario. The UN goes into Iraq (with major assistance from the US of course) and rebuilds the country with no casualties on either side. The rest of the world will probably be too busy discussing the rebuilding effort to comment on the US. If we don't go to war because the situation in North Korea becomes so dire that we are forced to divert our military to Eastern Asia, then the rest of the world will probably be talking about that situation. If we don't go to war because of our lack of support in the UN, then what the world thinks will depend on what action we seek next. If we drop the whole matter, then the world will probably see us as a spoiled child who had its ass spanked. If we look to create a consensus (thus leading to a resolution) among the other UN countries that sets up a specific date by which Iraq must be disarmed, then the rest of the world will probably think we've come to our senses and are not allowing the spectre of 9/11 to cloud our thinking any longer. The problem with the whole scenario is that Bush has set himself up to be either a bully or a coward. His black/white worldview prevents him from seeking options that would probably lead to the intended result (regime change in Iraq) with less damage (real and diplomatic). If he had spent half the energy on diplomacy that his father did during the Gulf War, he wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.
Sorry. I didn't mean cut off ties with Europe and Asia, just the Middle East. My bad. Nevertheless, this still only hurts us and the Middle East. Europe and Asia would be thrilled. Everything we were selling to the Middle East has to be replaced, and now can be provided by Europe - that's a huge boost to their economy. Everything we were buying from the Middle East helped create demand. Demand will drop, cutting prices. That means Europe can buy all the stuff they were buying at much cheaper prices. Meanwhile, we now have to pay higher prices elsewhere for the goods that we were importing from the Middle East, and we lose jobs from the loss of exports which we were previously sending over there. Anytime two groups close off trade between them, it only hurts those two parties.
Major, Exactly. Right now the world economy is driven by the US economy. If you stop doing business with other countries, they will simply join together and do business amongst themselves. It would only hurt our standing in the long run. I concur that we have a President that is too black and white, but what are we going to do? He is the president.... DD
You forgot one scenario: Saddam disarms Your above listed scenario is the worst case scenario. If Saddam goes into exile, a peaceful coupe in Iraq will take place. It is anybody's guess, if the new regime will be any better than the last. Any new regime will have to be given time to comply with the UN weapons regime and we are back on square one. The only way the US gets to rebuild Iraq in its own image is with tanks.
We should only pull out if Saddam bends over and appeases the demands of the UN resolution. With that said, let's look further down the road. Let's say for whatever reason, the US agrees to allow more time for "full disarmament." Ok, so then what. Somehow inspectors determine that Saddam no longer has any weapons of mass destruction, or the materials to build such. If we don't economically cripple Saddam, do you think he would go about the rest of days riding camels around the desert? Sure, let's pretend that he won't use his millions to replenish his supplies. Or what about his two sadistic sons? Are they going to go work at the local video store, and go about living a life without violence? His sons were bred to be as evil and sadistic as their father. Search for some stories on Uday and Qasay, and you'll see they were raised as psychopaths to carry on the Hussein name in all it's evil and oppresive glory. War to crush Saddam is the obvious unfortunate path that we have been forced to take.
I agree. All the inspections do is provide a short-term solution for the problem. After Iraq, disarms, what do we do? Just leave and say, "thank you, carry on?"
The way the Bush regime has posed this whole dilemma, it makes the US lose face if we *don't* invade.
Great thread title, but there is absolutely no way we will not go to war. Junior has pushed the country past the point of no return.
