why go to war?

[MetaphorcE]

Why should we go to war when diplomacy has not been extensively exhausted? Surely, in matters of life and death, a non-violent solution should be given the benefit of the doubt? Yet America insists war is the only solution, when clearly there are avenues of diplomacy not yet thouroughly exhausted.
Additionally, there is no immediate threat from Iraq at this moment in time - although the possibility of selling weapons to terrorists is usually given as the most common "current" threat. But I find it doubtful that this would be something being seriously considered by the Iraqi regime as long as they are able to maintain a grip on their power in Iraq. To me, the irony of the US attacking Iraq to prevent womd falling into terrorist hands is that it is likely to encourage it rather than prevent it. When cornered by the likelyhood of defeat at US hands, who knows how saddam might behave - selling (giving) womd to terrorists might be something he would consider as a last resort. For the moment though, it seems unlikely that he would do anything to jeopordise his position as Iraqi dictator. America has made it clear that it seeks to remove him, and the way I read it this gives saddam no incentive to cooperate with the US - not that it seems the US are really bothered by whether or not he cooperates anyway.

So why does the US want to go to war? I really have a hard time figuring that one out. I don't believe it is oil. That's a tired argument that I don't think has much relevance. Sure, it may be a secondary motive, but I don't think it would be reason enough to make the US act as agressively as it seemingly intends. I don't believe it is the Iraqi threat. Iraq would be highly unlikely to initiate a conflict, not after the gulf war. Iraq poses a fairly limited threat, especially to the US or britain.
Why is the US so intent on starting this conflict? I haven't even gone into what I believe America has to lose by starting a war, but I am baffled by what it has to gain. I don't believe america has anything to lose by defferring its decision on war for at least another year, while diplomacy continues. If diplomacy still fails, and the Iraqi threat is shown to be real, America would be able to go to war with Iraq possibly with full NATO and/or UN backing.
Why not wait? Why now?
Why go to war?

[tomthinks]

"Why should we go to war when diplomacy has not been extensively exhausted?"

What are some examples of types of diplomacy that haven't been exhausted?

[JMHX]

Now this is a very intelligent debate. I believe that Saddam Hussein must be taken out of power, and Hans Blix was hindering the act of diplomacy by conveniently hiding the things he found deep in his report. However, I don't see a mass-invasion as the way to get Saddam out. The country is so unstable that we could basically assassinate Saddam Hussein and then occupy Iraq without firing more than a few shots. The massive casualty levels we're going to inflict on the Iraqis is...well...overkill.

We know we can beat them. My question is, what are we planning to do after we occupy the nation? Of course we wouldn't just ABANDON it like we did Afghanistan.

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/13/03 09:06 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Now this is a very intelligent debate. I believe that Saddam Hussein must be taken out of power, and Hans Blix was hindering the act of diplomacy by conveniently hiding the things he found deep in his report. However, I don't see a mass-invasion as the way to get Saddam out. The country is so unstable that we could basically assassinate Saddam Hussein and then occupy Iraq without firing more than a few shots. The massive casualty levels we're going to inflict on the Iraqis is...well...overkill.

Assassination would be a nice scenario, but my worry is that if you simply kill the one man, another dictator could too easily replace him. I don't really see this as a war with many, many civilian casualties. I think the Iraqis won't put up much resistance (remember that some have already tried to surrender), and we can just march into Baghdad. Now, urban fighting against the Republican Guard may cost a few lives, military and civilian, but I think it's a better option than killing Saddam, leaving, and letting another dictator rise to power.

[Der-Ubermensch]

The role of hero isn't played very well by the United States... Afghanistan was invaded, the Taliban was annihilated and human rights issues in the country were brought up simply because a terrorist taking refuge in the area claimed responsibility for a mass killing of American citizens. "Oh how lovely... the Afghani girls will be able to go to school now and can walk in the streets without fear of being tortured for showing a bare inch of flesh...", says the average American shmoe. The reality is that Afghanistan has been abandoned by American forces and left to deal with the many powerful warlords who's ways virtually match those of the ousted Taliban regime.

Good job W (proper pronunciation being dubble'ya)... I know you'd be patting yourself on the back if you weren't busy picking your nose and your ass at the same time.

[D2Kvirus]

At 3/13/03 11:00 AM, Ruination wrote: The role of hero isn't played very well by the United States... Afghanistan was invaded, the Taliban was annihilated and human rights issues in the country were brought up simply because a terrorist taking refuge in the area claimed responsibility for a mass killing of American citizens. "Oh how lovely... the Afghani girls will be able to go to school now and can walk in the streets without fear of being tortured for showing a bare inch of flesh...", says the average American shmoe. The reality is that Afghanistan has been abandoned by American forces and left to deal with the many powerful warlords who's ways virtually match those of the ousted Taliban regime.

The irony of it is that that is the exact same state that Afghanistan was left in 20 years ago, wen the Russian forces left the region following some brief annihilation of the area. And don't they know the most basic rule of them all; there is no threat greater than those with nothing to lose. If al-Qu'eda did blow up the WTC as a result of these living conditions (and a suspect US bombing raid in '98, at almost the exact same time Clinton was being investigated for "extra curricular activities", sidestepping the rumours that Dubyuh was trying to bully oil out of the country for a moment), can you imagine how much anti-American feeling there is now? No wonder their US-installed President is constantly having attempts on his life.

[JMHX]

The Middle-East wouldn't hate us so much if we actually got things finished. If we stuck with one plan, one job until it was completed the right way. What we're doing is exactly what Britain did with the Middle-East and Africa a century back. We've become what we fought a war against.

[mysecondstar]

the one thing we most seek, above all, is power. an invasion of iraq will show the world all the power we can flex.

you said before that the iraqi regime would, above all else, want to hold its power on its people. likewise the US would like to demonstrate its power in the entire world. it would create shockwaves throughout the world extending to even our current conflict with north korea. and, therefore, would maybe subdue our future enemies without a fight.