Yet another poll

[shanbaum]

Here's a slightly different Iraq poll.

The stipulations are these:

It's about one year ago. U.N. inspection teams have discovered that Iraq has no weapons capabilities of any kind that could pose a significant threat either in the region or globally. They have determined, despite efforts of the Iraqi government to obstruct their investigations, that all of the substantial quantities of weapons that Iraq was known to have in the early 1990's were destroyed under the UNSCOM regime of that decade. The only active weapons production in the country which violated any U.N. or other agreements were some missiles whose range exceeded the allowed maximum, and these were destroyed.

Saddam Hussein is known to be a ruthless dictator, and while it is believed that he has no current threatening weapons capability, it is also believed that he will probably try to resurrect his weapons programs in the future if allowed to do so. However, it is also the case that the international community resolutely supports the continued imposition of inspections so long as Saddam remains in power. It is believed that Saddam's ability to produce any threatening weapons under these circumstances is very low - as low, for example, as it is that such weapons could be produced surreptitiously in the United States.

It is believed that if Saddam were able, in spite of the inspections regime, to produce a threatening weapon, that he would under no circumstances give that weapon to any other party for fear that it would be used against him.

The United States is considering an invasion of Iraq to remove such possibility as there is that Saddam might produce some weaponry that could harm the U.S. It is also assumed that Saddam's removal would lead to better conditions for the people of Iraq, but exactly what would happen in Iraq after Saddam's removal is unknown.

It is also known that if the United States were to invade Iraq in order to remove Saddam, that no fewer than 500 Americans would die. The number of Iraqi deaths is unknown but is believed to be many times that number.

It's your decision whether to invade or not.

[shanbaum]

And please, bear in mind that I'm not suggesting that this actually happened. It's a strictly theoretical scenario; consider nothing outside the scenario described.

[chm2023]

This is a big no. If I am reading your scenario correctly, there is no rationale for invasion, just past sins and the assumption that he would if he could. If this is sufficient reason for invasion, Katie bar the door!!!!!

[EyeManFla]

Given those facts, the only legitimate reason for a US invasion would be a direct link to Al-Quida. Otherwise, without UN mandate there is no reason to invade.

[keithbenjamin]

"Otherwise, without UN mandate there is no reason to invade."

Of course, because the UN should be responsible for US security.

[LaurieC]

EyeManFla said:
Given those facts, the only legitimate reason for a US invasion would be a direct link to Al-Quida. Otherwise, without UN mandate there is no reason to invade.

I believe there was a UN mandate, they just failed to follow through on it.:hammer:

[shanbaum]

"U.N. mandate" was not mentioned in the scenario, and the rule is, consider nothing outside the scenario. Breaking the rules is Evil, and this thread will be purged of Evil-doers.

[mooga]

I would say yes. I believe threats from the past will come back to haunt you. Take for example Germany's situation after WWI. They were thought never to be a threat again with heavey economic sanctions. Hitler used the plight as motivation to build his war machine. But he could of been stopped if the allies moved quick enough and not just ignored him or signed insignificant treaties. Who knows maybe WWII might not have happened if the chance was taken early to stop Hitler. It sounds almost like the same question in this poll. What if we are asking ourselves the same question ten years from now except the stipulation is using nukes due to some unnamed threat Saddam might pose.