Unilateral US war vs. Iraq

What are the best arguements in support of an attack?
- Preemptive attacks are always more affective than reactionary strikes. Ask the Egyptians, Jordanians and the Syrians about June '67.
What are the best arguements against an attack?
- Iraq is a sovereign nation. Attacking the Taliban was different, defending Kuwait was different also. To attack a sovereign nation you had better have a tremendous amount of world support, not to mention home nation support. The people may not like Saddam as much, but the moment you drop on their soil... imagine what would happen if Michigan invaded the bayous of Louisiana. Ugly...
What effect do you think an attack would have on that region?
- Right now, the region is fairly well balanced as far as local power. Even though the UAC was a concept signed onto by the Arabs from that area, they all have their own agendas. You weaken one of those nations too much, its like a wounded shark in a pool of hungry healthy sharks. Do we want an Iran that is twice its current size and with the incumbant oil reserves?
What effect do you think it would have on USA global opinion?
- This refers back to the amount of evidence you have for the initiation of the attack in the first place. Of course, the longer you are there, or the sloppier it gets, the quicker and more severe world opinion will shift. But once you go in, you better finish the job, regardless.
How do you think it would beneft USA?
- They will take us seriously. I see no other benefit, personally.
How do you think it would harm the USA?
- World opinion shifts to where we can accomplish nothing, would be a best "bad" case scenario. A worst case scenario would be if the Arab world reacts as a whole and sets this up as "another christian crusade against the glorious Muslim world" and they respond with massive suicide attacks and/or WOMD attacks on the troops there or on the USA itself.
Do you feel an attack is really necessary?
- Depends again on the evidence and the necessity for a preemptive strike.
Do you think it would help or hurt 'war on terrorism'?
- Depends on how effective the attack is and how well the message is received. If it is a shaky outcome, it could encourage the enemy. If it is surgical and complete, it might affect the flow of cash supposedly coming from Saddam's regime to support terrorism. Either way, terrorism won't stop. Terrorism will continue as long as you have someone who is so filled with hatred or whatever that their life counts as nothing to killing the idea they oppose.
Are there any other countries that support the idea of an attack?
- Deep down, if other countries believe we could stop or greatly stem the flow of terrorism support with this attack, they would ALL support it. Terrorism is just that; terror. It does not qualify who it attacks, it simply seeks to instill terror in the hearts and minds of those who are the intended target, for whatever reason. Nobody likes to see their people or anyone else, generally speaking, get blown up. Especially non-combatants. You find a way to eradicate terrorism cleanly and completely, you will have the world worshipping you.

 

hmm

What are the best arguements in support of an attack?
Iraq is our enemy.

What are the best arguements against an attack?
America is a big meany that should let themselves die because they are all bad.

What effect do you think an attack would have on that region?
there would be more craters

What effect do you think it would have on USA global opinion?
they would all still hate us

How do you think it would beneft USA?
It would mean the destruction of one of our enemies

How do you think it would harm the USA?
the rest of our enemies might just get their shit together, however this is doubtful

Do you feel an attack is really necessary?
yes

Do you think it would help or hurt 'war on terrorism'?
help

Are there any other countries that support the idea of an attack?
hmm well this is a stretch but china would like to see the air defense system they installed in action, how it stacks up to our stuff and what could be improved.

 

What are the best arguements in support of an attack?
He supports terrorists. He is building biological weapons to use against us.

What are the best arguements against an attack?
Lack of manpower, supplies, and reconfiguration of equitment. The Army has a new helicopter. It can go inverted and not crash. Not many pilots can fly it yet. The M1-A1 tank has armor unpenatratable by any ground unit except another M1-A1. It also has a new oxygen filter that likes to spontanously explode. 2 Fort Hood tank crews have suffered fatalities because of this.

What effect do you think an attack would have on that region?
Contrayer to popular belief the Saudis don't like us. Iran hates Iraq and would love to take their oil and land. With Pakastan and India on the verge of war and Israel and the Palastinians killing eachother off would it be wise to add fuel to the fire?

What effect do you think it would have on USA global opinion?
Just about everyone hates the US for some reason or another. I believe we would be strongly targeted for feature bombings if we went through with an assault.

How do you think it would beneft USA?
We would have a large military force sitting in the kill zone. So our deployment against the middle east would be faster. Oh yeah one less asshole in the world.

How do you think it would harm the USA?
We would have our military force sitting in the kill zone.... with all our enemies around us.

Do you feel an attack is really necessary?
I'm all for saying fuck the Jeneva convention and sending a sniper team in there to kill him and his family and then leaving it at that.

Do you think it would help or hurt 'war on terrorism'?
Kill a few people who hate us and take more people that dislike us and make them hate us. You're damned if you do you're damned if you don't.

Are there any other countries that support the idea of an attack?
Europe lacks a backbone. The UK may help us but don't expect much.

Of all that was said there is something to remember. The Iraqi soldiers fear us. We bombed them from afar for 60 days and nights. Those blasts killed a lot of them and injured many more. I remember how my drill explained to us how they identified Iraqi soldiers during desert storm. If ou looked at their feet and they were bleeding they were probably a soldier who fled their bunkers during a bombing run and their feet were cut up by constantly walking in sand. Bombs are very loud and if you saw an arab with dried blood around their ears they were probably an Iraqi soldier.

We beat the crap out of those poor people. Not one of them wanted to fight for that madman they have for a leader. I think they will remember the punishment we gave them the first time and surrender to us more quickly. I also think that madman is just crazy enough to use his biological warfare weapons against our troops.

Nerve agents can be absorbed through the skin and that MOPP4 takes a while to put on. Not to mention the fact that it is hot as fuck and being in the desert you will probably die from a heatstroke in that thing if you stay in it for a long duration. Our responce to a chemical or biolgical attack is a nuclear strike. That's why he didn't use anything on us the first time around. He was affraid we would nuke him... but if he knows we are coming to kill him... what does he have to lose by using his chemical arsenal? What are the consequences for detonating a nuclear device in the middle east?

Like I said.. fuck the Jeneva convention and take a sniper crew in there to kill him and his mad son. It would be cheap and safer.