17 reasons why US should not invade Iraq

by back2dafront 30 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  back2dafront

  Check out this article from a Pakistan newspaper:

  http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-1-2003_pg4_2

  17 reasons why US should not invade Iraq

  Staff Report
  
  WASHINGTON: The Dallas Peace Centre has come out with 17 reasons why the United States should not invade Iraq.
  
  They are:
  
  1. Iraq poses no clear and present danger to other countries, especially the US, as there is no evidence of plans to invade another country or use weapons of mass destruction.
  
  2. Iraq poses less of a threat to the world than at any time in the last decade, according to a 2002 CIA report.
  
  3. An invasion will make it easier, not harder, for Al Qaeda to recruit terrorists, leading to an increase in terrorism in the US and around the world.
  
  4. An invasion gives Hussein a reason to use his full arsenal of weapons against attackers and nearby countries because he would have nothing to lose.
  
  5. No link has been established between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network.
  
  6. An invasion could inflame a region where international tensions are already high.
  
  7. An unprovoked attack by one country against another is an unnecessary and immoral act that blatantly disrespects national sovereignty and security.
  
  8. The massive civilian casualties likely to occur in an invasion would unite the world against the US in a globally-interrelated age in which isolation is foolish.
  
  9. The hundreds of billions of dollars required for an invasion and long-term occupation of Iraq could push the US economy into a deep recession.
  
  10. Worldwide opposition to an invasion could further damage the US economy because one-quarter of our GNP is tied to international trade.
  
  11. Regime change is not an acceptable reason for an invasion.
  
  12. Experts estimate that Iraq is still three to five years away from developing even a short-range nuclear weapon that would endanger its neighbours.
  
  13. A pre-emptive strike would lend justification to other nations, to attack their perceived enemies.
  
  14. An invasion in defiance of the United Nations would snub the legitimacy of the only world body equipped to mediate international conflicts.
  
  15. A unilateral Iraq invasion and subsequent invasions of other countries now sanctioned by the National Security Strategy of the United States 2002, which permits and even encourages pre-emptive strikes - would colour the US as the new conquering Romans.
  
  16. Polls show that most Americans oppose a unilateral invasion.
  
  17. Wars and acts of terrorism precipitated by an Iraq invasion could last for decades in an endless cycle of hatred and revenge.

  I wonder if America could make a list showing 17 reasons to attack Iraq. There's only 3 I could think of:

  1. Sadaam is a blood-thirsty maniac.

  2. Iraq is part of "the axis of evil."

  3. If we don't get him now, he'll get us later.

  4. ????

  Just find it interesting what other newspapers are printing in comparison to how the news reads here. Interesting indeed.

  -back2dafront
• 

  RubyTuesday

  4.Generally, Hussein is a proven threat to international security, he is interested in developiong chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and has shown a willigness to use such weapons on Iraq's neighbors but also against Iraq's Kurdish population. Iraq has to be removed as a threat now before it has the ability to lash out at Israel, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait or US troops stationed in the region.

  5.Alternatives to invasion won't solve the problem. UN inspectors were unable to certify that Iraq had disarmed its WMD programs due to Iraqi obstructions. Since the inspectors left Iraq in 1998 Hussein has had considerable time to rebuild his WMD program and to improve his ability to hide critical facilities.

  6.If Iraq were to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction it could threaten regional stability and deter any potential military action against Iraq. Hussein and his gorvenment believe that it was their possession of chemical and biological weapons that deterred the Coalition Forces from invading Iraq during Desert Storm. A WMD capable Iraq would become a regional hegemon.

  7.Winning the war would be easy and the costs would be minimal. The Iraqi military was devestated during the Guld War and has continued to suffer after 11 years of sanctions and other military actions. The United States and its allies can achieve their goals with relatively few troops and costs can be measured as low as $20 billion.

  8.The Iraqi people would support this action. They live under a brutal and repressive regime with little or no true freedoms.

  9.A democratic Iraqi government would help with the Middle East peace process. Moderate Iraqi regime would discourage militants and boost the credibility of moderate Palestinians who are interested in peace. Iraq financially supports the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, a change of regime could bring an end to this practice.
• 

  back2dafront

  Ruby,

  Valid points - thanks.

  United States of America Posts: 404 Since: Jul 9, 2002s6b9UYtmXLlj4KFkeNIrEA

  4.Generally, Hussein is a proven threat to international security, he is interested in developiong chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and has shown a willigness to use such weapons on Iraq's neighbors but also against Iraq's Kurdish population. Iraq has to be removed as a threat now before it has the ability to lash out at Israel, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait or US troops stationed in the region.

  Where's the strong backing from these countries for war in Iraq? I dunno, just seems to me that the USA is the only one that really considers Iraq a threat. Just makes me wonder why. I mean, I know others consider him dangerous, but the general consensus has been that now is not the right time, nor is there WMD evidence. What is it that USA sees or is interested in that these other countries don't?

  The United States and its allies can achieve their goals with relatively few troops and costs can be measured as low as $20 billion.

  Since when is 20 billion dollars a "low" cost? I'm sure there are other ways that money could benefit our flailing economy. ??

  cheers,

  back2dafront
• 

  FrankyFourVests

  The invasion of Iraq is a foregone conclusion. Don't wate your time. Instead, you should be writing, "17 reasons why US should not invade Iran" lists.
• 

  WildHorses

  Back,

  you seem to know alot about this subject, so I have a question for you. Many times I hear people say that war will help out the economy. Do you believe this to be true? If so, could this be the main reason for this war? If not, what do you feel is their main reason?

  Just curious.
• 

  back2dafront

  Lilacs,

  From my vantage point, war doesn't help the economy, it helps companies (Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, etc.) that make products to support the Armed Forces. Take for example Lockheed Martin, a company that " engages in the design, manufacture, integration, and operation products and services ranging from aircraft, spacecraft and launch vehicles to missiles, electronics, information systems and energy management." Check out their stock price - they have moved from $16.63 in March 2000 to $57.70 as of Dec 27, 2002 whereas your technology companies have plummeted. If you're in the Arms sector you will fare well in times of war. The rest of us can forget about it.

  Hmmmm...I wonder if the Bush family has business ties to any Arms companies. :-)
• 

  peacefulpete

  Modern warfare does not involve the kind of broad domestic reorganizing that WW2 did. The weapons used are very specialized and only a few high tech and armnament manufacturers would stand to benefit Likewise the concerns of a draft is antiquated. Modern war is a war of smart bombs and long range weaponry. The role of the unskilled conscripted foot soldier has almost disappeared. This is a very real aspect as to why few Americans are voicing oposition to this slaughter. They feel insolated. Noone other than volunteers will face danger. The new Bush Doctrine of attack the weak before they can become a threat is a reversal of 150 years of foreign policy. Policy that was in place to prevent despotic presidents from using our militery to terrorize other nations into compliance. A strong militery can assist those who ask for help and are being victimized or it can act as a deterrent. It must not be allowed to become a political tool of extortion. The issue is about oil and exerting U.S. influence in the middle east. The phrase "weapons of mass destruction" was coined by the Bush administration and has become the word of the day. Problem is it is without definition and therefore rheteric. There has been found no proof tht Iraq has any WMD dispite the U.S. "proof" given to the inspectors. Hussein is not a good man or leader but this is neither new nor unique. I will not be proud to be an American if we slaughter another 60,000 "unarmed" people for cheap gas. Moveon.com is an excellent source for the real news that does not go through the media filter. If you go there anyone with no money or commitment can receive a regular email to keep up to pace with what is happening and why. When the world's superpower attacks an unarmed third world country it is not a war it is butchery.
• 

  Pleasuredome

  i think we should have world war 3 and be done with it.
• 

  expatbrit

  1. Iraq poses no clear and present danger to other countries, especially the US, as there is no evidence of plans to invade another country or use weapons of mass destruction.

  The Iraqi regime has demonstrated that it is always a threat to other countries with its past record. The regime should be removed for what it has already done, not just for what it may do in the future. I wonder if the Dallas Peace Centre was saying the same thing on August 1, 1990.
  

  2. Iraq poses less of a threat to the world than at any time in the last decade, according to a 2002 CIA report.

  Yes, because of the constant military presence of the US and UK, and enforced sanctions. Is anyone naive enough to think that without those restraints, Saddam Hussein wouldn't increase his military power? The man is a power-hungry dictator, he will always be a threat to neighbouring countries and World stability.
  

  3. An invasion will make it easier, not harder, for Al Qaeda to recruit terrorists, leading to an increase in terrorism in the US and around the world.

  Entirely subjective speculation. This cannot be demonstrated from the regime change in Afghanistan, why should it be demonstrable from an invasion of Iraq?
  

  4. An invasion gives Hussein a reason to use his full arsenal of weapons against attackers and nearby countries because he would have nothing to lose.

  Contradicts 1 and 2. First they say Iraq is no threat to neighbouring countries, now they're worried about Iraq using its weapons on neighbouring countries.
  

  .5. No link has been established between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network

  So what? This presupposes that a link to al-Qaeda is a necessary condition for a regime change in Iraq.
  
  

  6. An invasion could inflame a region where international tensions are already high.

  Sure it could. But leaving the status quo is not an acceptable option. With nuclear proliferation, sooner or later Middle Eastern states will get nuclear weapons. Better to inflame them now than leave psychopaths in control for the future.
  
  

  7. An unprovoked attack by one country against another is an unnecessary and immoral act that blatantly disrespects national sovereignty and security.

  Says who? Also makes the highly subjective pre-supposition that an invasion of Iraq would be "unprovoked".
  
  

  8. The massive civilian casualties likely to occur in an invasion would unite the world against the US in a globally-interrelated age in which isolation is foolish.

  So subjective as to be ridiculous.
  
  

  9. The hundreds of billions of dollars required for an invasion and long-term occupation of Iraq could push the US economy into a deep recession.

  Makes use (of course) of the most pessimistic cost-estimates. Assumes a long-term "occupation" will be necessary.
  
  

  10. Worldwide opposition to an invasion could further damage the US economy because one-quarter of our GNP is tied to international trade.

  LOL! Do they really think other countries will damage their economies out of solidarity for Saddam Hussein?
  
  

  11. Regime change is not an acceptable reason for an invasion.

  Yes it is.
  

  12. Experts estimate that Iraq is still three to five years away from developing even a short-range nuclear weapon that would endanger its neighbours.

  Wow! A whole three to five years before Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons! How will we kill all that time? Let's not remove Saddam now, we estimate he wont have nukes for at least three years, poor little man!
  

  13. A pre-emptive strike would lend justification to other nations, to attack their perceived enemies.

  Oh yes, that's right. Other countries have been restraining themselves. Think of all the countless wars averted because other countries said to themselves "wait! We have no United States-created justification for invading Slobaromapakirania!"
  
  

  14. An invasion in defiance of the United Nations would snub the legitimacy of the only world body equipped to mediate international conflicts.

  It would also demonstrate the utter incompetence and impotence of said world body, which has failed miserably in resolving international conflicts up till now.
  

  15. A unilateral Iraq invasion and subsequent invasions of other countries now sanctioned by the National Security Strategy of the United States 2002, which permits and even encourages pre-emptive strikes - would colour the US as the new conquering Romans.

  Highly subective and propagandistic language. Besides, Rome was the bastion of civilization and learning for hundreds of years.
  
  

  16. Polls show that most Americans oppose a unilateral invasion.

  And if we don't like these polls, we'll use other polls.
  
  

  17. Wars and acts of terrorism precipitated by an Iraq invasion could last for decades in an endless cycle of hatred and revenge.

  Or the removal of Saddam Hussein could create an opportunity to bring Iraq and its suffering people out of the stone age and remove a significant destabilising factor in the region.

  Expatbrit
• 

  Pleasuredome

  Or the removal of Saddam Hussein could create an opportunity to bring Iraq and its suffering people out of the stone age and remove a significant destabilising factor in the region.

  or the removal of the US, British and Isreali governments could remove a significant destabilising factor in the WORLD.