What would be a justified invasion of IRAQ?

[loki09789]

Lots of critics and armchair QBing going on about the war in Iraq? People feel free to criticize it.

The point if this thread is to outline in positive sentenc structure what would make for a justified invasion of Iraq?

What would you do to 'win the war' in Iraq and what would the indicators of a "win" be so that you knew that it was won?

I know there will be those who can't help but do the "Bush did...." comments but that isn't what I care about, what would YOU DO if you had to make the decision on dealing with Iraq and SHussein (even including not invading if that is your stance)?

To confuse the issue all the further, what would you do differently in Afg, with the same discussion guidelines in place?

Please no veiled answers that start with "Well, I know I wouldn't do xyz..." that's like the Kerry/Bush/Edwards "I will answer that question, but first let me...." garbage.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'd have maintained the sanctions--which were working, pressured the hell out of the UN to quit screwing around with them, and encouraged/supported the UN weapon inspectors, who turned out to be absolutely right anyway.

In Afghanistan, a Presdient woulda had to send in the soldiers. They were indeed directly tied to 9/11--they attacked us--and wiping out an eight-century religous fanatic government would simply be an added perk.

Of course, Saudi Arabia had direct ties to 9/11. Our history in Afghanistan is what got us into trouble in the first place. North Korea clearly is pushing WMDs, and has been directly threatening out trading partners and allies.

So, let's invade Iraq.

 

[michaeledward]

There was no justification for an invasion of Iraq.

• Inspections process under UNMOVIC should have continued.
• The destruction of the missles with a range greater than 150 Km would have been completed. Those, missles by the way, had a range of approximatley 157 Km.
• The inspectors would have found that all Weapons of Mass Destruction were either destroyed or lost.
• The inspectors would have found that all abilities to manufacture Weapons of Mass Destruction were destroyed.
• At this time, Iraq would have been shown to have been in compliance with the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreements. All sanctions would have to be lifted. All relationships with Iraq could again be 'normalized'.
• And yes, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Big Deal!

I would have demanded Congress Declare War on Afghanistan.

• Once a Declaration of War was authorized, I would have stated the only acceptable solution is 'Unconditional Surrender'.
• A full scale military assualt on Afghanistan and occupation by several hundred thousand United States soldiers, until such time as every citizen of Iraq was accounted for and controlled.
• In order to pay for this mobilzation, I would have demanded taxes on all citizens of the United States be raised to meet the need.
• I would have ordered rationing of Gasoline and other imported goods.
• A full war footing, similiar to what happened in this country in 1942.

If you are going to fight with the military. It should be EXTREMELY VIOLENT and devistating. Which is why it must be so carefully considered. Also, as the House of Representatives is elected by popular vote every two years, they must be involved in the decision.

 

[pete]

what would make for a justified invasion of Iraq?

an attack on the US, or our foreign interests and allies... or, substantive proof of the potential of such attack (means, motive, and opportunity).

What would you do to 'win the war' in Iraq and what would the indicators of a "win" be so that you knew that it was won?

have a plan to win the war, developed by military experts and an exit strategy approved by our civilian leaders... we'd know it was won, when the cause or threat that justified invasion is removed

what would YOU DO if you had to make the decision on dealing with Iraq and SHussein (even including not invading if that is your stance)?

not invade based on the information i've been given, if there was justified cause, then i'd make sure the troops received full support to win quickly and avoid a prolonged confrontation and pseudo-occupation.

To confuse the issue all the further, what would you do differently in Afg)?

don't leave until we found the bastards who attacked us and killed them dead...

hows dat...

 

[loki09789]

There was no justification for an invasion of Iraq.

• Inspections process under UNMOVIC should have continued.
• The destruction of the missles with a range greater than 150 Km would have been completed. Those, missles by the way, had a range of approximatley 157 Km.
• The inspectors would have found that all Weapons of Mass Destruction were either destroyed or lost.
• The inspectors would have found that all abilities to manufacture Weapons of Mass Destruction were destroyed.
• At this time, Iraq would have been shown to have been in compliance with the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreements. All sanctions would have to be lifted. All relationships with Iraq could again be 'normalized'.
• And yes, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Big Deal!

.

I knew it would happen...

 

[loki09789]

an attack on the US, or our foreign interests and allies... or, substantive proof of the potential of such attack (means, motive, and opportunity).

have a plan to win the war, developed by military experts and an exit strategy approved by our civilian leaders... we'd know it was won, when the cause or threat that justified invasion is removed

not invade based on the information i've been given, if there was justified cause, then i'd make sure the troops received full support to win quickly and avoid a prolonged confrontation and pseudo-occupation.

don't leave until we found the bastards who attacked us and killed them dead...

hows dat...

A little vague on the "plan" portions and such, any specifics that you could add?

 

[loki09789]

In Afghanistan, a Presdient woulda had to send in the soldiers. They were indeed directly tied to 9/11--they attacked us--and wiping out an eight-century religous fanatic government would simply be an added perk.

Of course, Saudi Arabia had direct ties to 9/11. Our history in Afghanistan is what got us into trouble in the first place. North Korea clearly is pushing WMDs, and has been directly threatening out trading partners and allies.

So, let's invade Iraq.

Here it is again, can't keep it in da pants....

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Here it is again, can't keep it in da pants....

Actually, I think that's a direct answer to the questions you posed. For some people, there *was* no reason to invade Iraq.

 

[michaeledward]

I knew it would happen...

Why not ask, "What would be a positive reason for invading Canada?"

I think, perhaps, you wanted to ask "When is military action acceptable?" Which is a completely different question. By my reckoning, military action was not acceptable in Iraq.

 

[pete]

A little vague on the "plan" portions and such, any specifics that you could add?

yeah, win at the least cost to us in terms of lives and dollars (in that order)... if that means leveling the place, so be it.

What would be a positive reason for invading Canada?"

something just not right about a country that names itself after its bacon... and i'm getting a bit tired of them sending their geese down our way to crap on our land. but, maybe we should start with sanctions.

 

[Flatlander]

Why not ask, "What would be a positive reason for invading Canada?"

There are only two that come to mind:

1) Angry American revenge

2) Natural resources

 

[Phoenix44]

Why not ask, "What would be a positive reason for invading Canada?"

Because that's where all the cold weather comes from.

(I stole that from Lewis Black)

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer, Deep Thoughts.

 

[Makalakumu]

There are only two that come to mind:

1) Angry American revenge

2) Natural resources

Sweet Idea! Flat you can be my subversive agent! Who else would like to sign on to my new think tank. I call it the Breathren Under Low Level Secret Hierarchies In Texas. This is commonly known as Project ********. Our secret code word is bovine fecal matter.

 

[Nightingale]

if they attacked us first. period.

 

[Tgace]

Just as a philosophical exercise. What if you discovered a country planned an attack but failed carrying it through? Say we discovered the 9/11 attacks ahead of time, arrested the terrorists and turned up the whole plan....what would you do with Al Queda, Afganistan etc.?

 

[michaeledward]

Just as a philosophical exercise. What if you discovered a country planned an attack but failed carrying it through? Say we discovered the 9/11 attacks ahead of time, arrested the terrorists and turned up the whole plan....what would you do with Al Queda, Afganistan etc.?

In the event of an imminent attack, Preventative action is demanded. Hit hard!

That is one of the problems with terrorism as a tactic. Normally, the attacks are isolated incidents. So really, once you discover the plan, there is no need for Preventative action.

But, you better be pretty damn sure, before you hit hard, that the other country was on the verge of attack, and you better be able to prove. Should I go so far as to say you will need to convince the citizenry so they may continue to have credibility internationally. Won't your evidence need to pass a Global Test of credibility?

Hmmm.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Symptomatic Freudian remarks about pants aside, let's consider LOCALLY.

Just as a philosophical exercise, what would be the legitimate reason for a President who either has a) a direct attack on the United States to deal with, or b) plain, clear, honest evidence of some, "clear and present danger," caused by a hostile country, NOT to go to Congress and to the American people and ask for a vote on war?

 

[PeachMonkey]

if they attacked us first. period.

I have to admit that I refuse to take the option of pre-emption completely off the table. If Israel, for instance, had done this in 1967, the state would likely not exist.

However, as Robert has pointed out, there is no reason whatsoever that the President can't go to Congress and ask for a formal declaration of war, and the evidence to do so had better be strong, clear, unambiguous, and not contested by the President's own intelligence agencies.

 

[lvwhitebir]

if they attacked us first. period.

What about in the defense of another nation? Was it right for us to have stayed out of WW1 or WW2 until attacked ourselves? We've gotten into a lot of wars (almost all of them) when we weren't first attacked. Should we have gotten involved with Iraq in 1990 when it invaded Kuwait? They didn't attack us...

WhiteBirch