Poll: Should U.S. etc. go to war against Iraq

In http://EvC Forum: War and Majority -->EvC Forum: War and Majority, shilohproject posted:

quote:

---

I've heard quite a bit of talk about the polls reflecting that a majority of Americans, and non-Americans too, do not believe that a war with Iraq is either currently justified...

---

What do you think?Questions:1) Should the U.S. etc. go to war against Iraq?
2) Are you a U.S. citizen? - Or non-citizen resident?My answers: 1) No, 2) U.S. citizenI will try (by edit) to keep a tally of results in this opening message.Moose

1.) No
2.) US Citizen

Best topic I've seen in a long time. Sorry, but I've got to comment before I vote, plus I probably can't provide a yes/no to question one.As far as I'm concerned, when we march into Iraq it had better damn well be because the weapons inspections have turned up incontrovertible evidence of significant caches of weapons of mass destruction. Keeping a military force in the Gulf is very expensive, but that doesn't justify this apparent rush to war. I couldn't bring myself to vote for either presidential candidate in the last election, but if Bush starts this war with insufficient provocation then I'll have to give his opponent serious consideration in the next election.The big danger we face is enlarging the population is displaced Moslems with a grudge against the US. As wrong as the 9/11 terrorists were, the lesson for us is to work at become less hated around the world. That doesn't mean not hunting down Al Queda, but it definitely means not doing what Bush seems to be doing now.

1. Should the U.S etc. go to war against Iraq?
   ​
   Only if we find the smoking gun.
   ​
2. Are you a U.S. citizen? - Or non-citizen resident?
   ​
   U.S. citizen

--Percy

1) No. Enough killing. And send a weapons-inspection team to N. Korea and especially, Israel. Attack them if they have nukes.2) Not US citizen... more like US victim

Percy, I agree 100%.For now, I'll take your answer to be "no".Moose

No and neither resident nor citizen.Saddam probably has all sorts of bits and pieces stashed away, but so do the leaders of N. Korea, Israel, USA, and a great many other places. The life or death question is whether/when they might use them. There is no indication that any national leader would use WMD's offensively, because their enemies know where they live. I see nothing wrong with letting the weapons inspectors stay in Iraq as long as ever they want, preventing Saddam's WMD's from being made battle-ready.

1)Tenative yes to war
2)Neither resident nor citizenI think there are other countries with questionable leadership, that should be inspected as well.Curious as to why Israel has been referred to as dangerous in an above post. From what I know of the history of conflicts in that area Israel only seems to defend themselves, against radical groups.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

1) No.
2) United Kingdom.I also don't approve of the phrase 'smoking gun'. It's a phrase born of propaganda that implies guilt of some attrocity that hasn't actually happened.
As far as Iraq owning WoMD, I'd like the US to openly declare to the world how many nuclear warheads and other such destructive weapons they own, then compare them to the weaponry Iraq is accused of owning to put things into perspective.
Then there's the question of Pakistan and North Korea. Two countries that are nuclear capable but, of course, not sitting on oil fields.It all seems to me like Bush trying to win the votes of the ignorant by flexing his muscles.

Saddam’s a major pain in the arse, not just to the west, look at what he did to the Kuwaitis, it was worse than Kosovo! We don’t want someone like that in control of the world’s oil supply. This should have been done in 1990, not guilty my arse!1. Yes2. (British) Dutch residentP.s. I am not an inbred illiterate, moron with no highschool

1) No. I don't think it will make the world a safer place and there is't a clear idea of what will happen to Iraq post-Saddam. There was a BBC documentary on last night in the UK which reminded viewers that the US have had around 600 failed assassination attempts on Castro and also that Mossad have been trying to kill Saddam since the first (1991) Gulf War and have ended up killing more of their own. He runs the country like a private mafia and is intensely paranoid about all but his closest associates. He'll be near impossible to kill.Besides, speculating here, but if I was Saddam and I knew my time was up, I'd attack Israel. Israel would respond with nukes, the Arab nations (+ Russia, China) would freak and you'd kick off WWIII. It would be his best chance of emerging as leader of a unified Arab nation, his lifelong ambition.If you replaced Saddam with one of his generals (the preferred option), I don't see what you've gained. If there's a popular uprising and the Ba'aths are overthrown, then will the US be happy to see the South vote to become part of Iran?2) British i.e non-US, for now PEedited to add: shame this is in the short tem forum - it would have made a good zeitgeist.[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 01-27-2003]

Should the U.S etc. go to war against Iraq?1/ Yes. BUT only if we find the smoking gun.2/ Are you a U.S. citizen? - Or non-citizen resident?
U.K. citizen, er, subject.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Interesting thread.1. No. Not, however, because I have any concern either for Iraq itself or the "morality" of a war there. My main concern is that this one promises to be much bloodier and more costly than the previous. Oh, I have no doubt that we'll quite handily obliterate Iraq's armor and what is jokingly known as an "air force". After all, even though ol' Saddam has been busily getting his mitts on as many goodies as he can over the last ten years, the overwhelming qualitative advantage remains.However, a full-scale invasion is much more problematic than simply booting him out of Kuwait was. Consider - at no time during Desert Storm was there any urban warfare (with the exception of Khafji, which was Saddam stupidly sticking his neck out to get cut off, but it occurred in a town that had been completely evacuated well beforehand). How many civilian casualties do you think we'll have if we have to lay seige (or worse, fight through) some place like Basrah or Baghdad? Saddam got creamed last time because he came out to play. Think he hasn't learned at least something from the last go-around? He fought that one like he thought we were Iranians, or something. Stupid amateur, he had no idea how far out of his league he was. However, I don't think he'll make the same mistake twice.On the other hand, comparing Saddam's owning WMD with Pakistan, India, Israel, or even North Korea owning WMD is a false analogy, IMO. Saddam IS megalomaniac enough to either use 'em if his back's to the wall, or worse, sell one or two just to make trouble (if he could do it with any kind of deniability, all the Islamists on the planet would line up to defend his "innocence"). None of the others (with the possible exception of North Korea) will sell or give away THAT kind of toy. I don't think N. Korea would either, unless they could pin it on someone else (like Iraq...).What's the solution short of war? I kind of like Chavalon's idea. Make "weapons inspector" a life-long career choice. If Saddam gives 'em a hard time at any point, wiping out one of his vaunted Republican Guards armored divisions or completely taking out his air force as a warning might be salutory. That won't stop him from continuing WMD development, but it'll make it a lot harder.2. Non-resident US citizen

Mark24 said:

quote:

---

1/ Yes. BUT only if we find the smoking gun.

---

Isn't that the same as "No, not until we find the smoking gun"?I probably should have put "based on the what we now know" into the opening message.Mooseps: To all - Don't forget the topic that I spun this poll off of. It is "War and Majority'.

My answers are no, and no.Right now there isnt enough evidence to single out Iraq. If the evidence had been turned up - and we kept hearing that it existed - that would have been different.