Invasion of Iraq

If Iraq attacked the United States I'd support a Congressional declaration of war and an invasion. I'd support an occupation similar to MacArthur's occupation of Japan. However, Iraq hasn't attacked us; the inspectors haven't found much in the way of evidence, and I personally doubt that Saddam could hit Istanbul, let alone New York City.

Post 1

Thursday, February 6, 2003 - 2:25am

Before Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland, The apeasers were asking for evidence of Hitler's Rearmament.

I support the Strike on Iraq, but I do so coupled with a sense of futility. However If we don't go after Iraq not only will America's credibility in the world shrink farther still and open ourself to more attacks.

Post 2

Thursday, February 6, 2003 - 10:26am

Like Mark Steyn, I would prefer to invade and disarm Iraq WITHOUT UN participation. Their meddling was the reason the US did not finish the job in 1991. However, since you didn't allow that choice, I'll have to choose to accept it if they want to give it. But no French military!

Post 3

Thursday, February 6, 2003 - 11:38am

By my understanding, in Gulf War I the French airforce was relegated to patrolling southern Saudi Arabia because they had the same kind of Mirage planes that Iraq had and the allies didn't want to accidentally shoot down the French. So they probably won't be fighting whether or not they're "with us". Of course, how could the French ever fight the Iraqi's? It would just be a race to see who could surrender to the other the fastest!

Post 4

Thursday, February 6, 2003 - 1:23pm

For Sale: 30,000 French Rifles, excelent condition, never used - only dropped once.

Post 5

Thursday, February 6, 2003 - 2:33pm

Mark, are you sure those 30K French rifles weren't bought second-hand from the ARVN? Nice Full Metal Jacket reference, by the way.

Post 6

Thursday, February 6, 2003 - 5:40pm

Yeah, let's disarm Iraq of its most volatile weapon, Mssr. Hussein. And wouldn't it be nice to see the Western media remember where their freedom of press comes from? I'm sick of the constant assertions that sanctions kill Iraqi children (no, inadequate distribution of aid by aforementioned psychotic dictator kills Iraqi children). There are millions of people living under the gun of political oppression all around the world: the peaceniks would do well to remember that in this case, unfortunately, to be anti-war is to be anti-liberty.

Give the Iraqi people (and the north Koreans too) the chance to live free from the threat of force and inhuman violence. Let them choose their own political system. Let's not feel pity for Hussein or Kim; let's remember not to trust they who have no qualms about killing their own people corporeally and spiritually.

Post 7

Friday, February 7, 2003 - 5:37am

In my Objectivist view, the United States is morally justified in invading Iraq, North Korea, or any other dictatorship.

As a matter of security, however, I would support going directly to the root of the political Islamism that drives the entire Middle East region: Iran.

-PK

Post 8

Friday, February 7, 2003 - 6:54am

I thought that Saudi Arabia was the root of militant Islam.

Post 9

Friday, February 7, 2003 - 7:44am

Saudi Arabia is as well-- it's the source of Wahhabism.

However, Iran probably poses the biggest threat to long term security. Not only is it a repressive dictatorship, it is also pursuing a "civil" nuclear programme. It's no secret that Iran has developed sophisticated missiles that are capable of long-range strikes. Iran also actively funds Hizbollah's terrorism in Israel.

Post 10

Friday, February 7, 2003 - 10:23pm

My view is that the United States should invade, conquer and annex the entire world. The obvious and logical solution to the problems caused by foreign countries is to eliminate all other foreign countries.

Post 11

Saturday, February 8, 2003 - 7:02am

Are you trolling, Mark?

Post 12

Saturday, February 8, 2003 - 9:17pm

It seems to me he's laughing at Peter Krembs' absurdity, a sentiment that I second.

Post 13

Sunday, February 9, 2003 - 12:22am

Thank you, Francois!

Sunday, February 9, 2003 - 3:30am

athene21, the sanctions ARE vicious - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/183499.stm

The United States' medieval blockade prevents Iraq from importing many basic necessities.

Most pesticides and fertilizer are banned because of their potential military use. Raw sewage is pumped continuously into water that people end up drinking because Iraq's water treatment plants were blown up by US bombs in 1991-and most have never been repaired. Chlorine is banned under the sanctions because it also could be of military use. Typhoid, dysentery and cholera have reached epidemic proportions. Iraqi schoolchildren go without pencils, which are forbidden because carbon could be extracted from them that might be used to coat airplanes and make them invisible to radar.

More than one million Iraqis have died, half of them children, as a direct consequence of economic sanctions. As many as 12% of the children surveyed in Baghdad are wasted, 28% stunted and 29% underweight.

This immense suffering has also been only intensified by US and British bombing of civilian infrastructure in the illegal no-fly zones for the last 12 years.

Post 15

Sunday, February 9, 2003 - 6:47am

Standing by the principle of non-initiation of force, I don't support a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. However, I will change my position the very instant that Iraq uses force against any of its neighboring countries. I don't care about the UN and feel that US decisions should be based on strong principles; if the UN supports them, great, if not, we should do the right thing in spite of them. But initiating the use of force is NOT the right thing.

Post 16

Sunday, February 9, 2003 - 10:04am

Iraq initiated force.

Post 17

Sunday, February 9, 2003 - 4:26pm

The Iraqi government is a brutal despotic regime, by violating the individual rights of its citizens to the highest degree and therefore has lost it's right to protection under the law. It is an outlaw state and should be treated as such.

To attack an outlaw state even if it does not directly threaten us is not to initate force. By initating force it is an outlaw state and any action against it by the freest nations of the west should be considered as retaliation for it's crimes. Even if we were not the particular victims of that crime.

The real question is it in America's national interest to attack Iraq. As I see it Iran is the biggest threat in the region which must be dealt with. This is a nation which is directly initating force against us. Iran is the only country which I see as absolutely neccessary to go to war with.

Iraq is a danger to the region but not a direct threat to America. Iraq was never a problem to America before it invaded Kuwait in fact America bankrolled Saddam's war against Iran.

We of course cannot expect a rational foreign policy. What I am pretty certain though is if the US does not attack Iraq, Bush will not have the confidence to attack Iran. I hope Iraq is a staging post to Iran but I can't predict what the Bush administration will do after Iraq, indeed I do not beleive Bush himself knows what he will do next.

Hopefully we are seeing a domino effect seeing Afghanistan, now Iraq maybe next year we could see a more threatening nation dealt with.

I beleive neutrality is by on large the most rational policy. But militant Islam is not a rival competitor like China or Russia for power in the world. It is dedicated to our destruction.

I beleive the best policy is an agressive assertive war overthrowing the Iranian regime making clear that attacks against America will not be tollerated. Then leave the Middle East, to their own power lusting statist to fight each other as long as they don't threaten us.

Post 18

Sunday, February 9, 2003 - 6:35pm

>

If Mark D Furwiler had a substantive point to make, why did he not state it clearly and unambiguously, rather than resorting to nihilist-style sneering sarcasm?

Post 19

Sunday, February 9, 2003 - 6:41pm