This week: The Gulf Strike

The US launched air strikes on Iraqi military targets on two consecutive days. And they haven't ruled out the possibility of further action. In an election year, Clinton, Dole and other politicians seem to know exactly why we're there. But has anyone explained it to you?

Do you think we should be taking action in Iraq? If so, explain your reasons. If not, give us your best conspiracy theory explaining why we're really there.

For other past survey results, check our survey archive.

A new Politics & Community survey is published each Thursday.

---

randyman: Best theory: It's a campaign year and Clinton wants to look "more presidential." The Prez has been taking a lot of heat for his "soft, weak" foreign policy (or "fern policy" as Howard Baker pronounced it in his "Clinton is a wussy" rant at the Republican Convention), so he blasts a bunch of missles into Iraq and becomes an instant hawk two months before election day.

traceym: I don't know what the appropriate action is but I do not believe we can stand by and let the Kurds, a people without a country, be destroyed by Saddam Hussein. It is much like the situation was in Bosnia. While a quick fix won't necessarily solve a long standing problem we cannot go back to isolationist policy of the early 20th century. America needs to come to terms with its "peace making" role in the world. PS -- My wife thinks we should kill Saddam Hussein, which would end the real problem in Iraq.

Ozgur: Some people say that what Iraq is doing is none of our business,but if we don't take action against Iraq. Iraq would ultimately attempt to take over Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia. In fact, why don't we throw in the whole Arabian peninsula! There are reason why we should get involved. First of all we have an interest in the gulf, oil. If Hussain takes over these countries, then it would definately be an embargo on us. Secondly, we have a diplomatic duty to these nations, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to help protect them. I just find interesting that it took us forever to take semi action in Bosnia-Herzogovina. Of course, there are no interesting resources to protect.

BigBopper: We are there for one and only one reason: to protect our own econimic interests in the region - oil. Any other reason(s) given by our leaders are pure, political hogwash.

pazz: The President had to protect American interests in the Gulf.

eanders: The strikes were undertaken primarily to protect our airmen flying in the region. Because of the slant range of Iraqi missiles, There've been concerns that the original southern no-fly zone boundries made no sense based on the laydown of Iraqi air defenses. They've simply tidied things up. And rightly so. E. R. Anders.

mlsoft: why did'nt they kill hussein while in desert storm operation. 24 hours more in desert storm and we wouldn't be talking of it today.

rasika: I think, if Iraq army had no business in the nothern part of its country, the US army too, must be confined to the US teritories. What was an 18,000 US troops doing in Gulf anyway.

Nizal: I really don't think U.S should take any action in Iraq as the people there already suffer alot due to the embargo.They don't need missiles flying over their head to add on to their misery.There already..prices of food & daily essential rises astromically..What the U.S should do is sit still.On the map,Saddam Hussein was attacking one of his one cities..not some foreign country..The U.S has no right in interfering to do all that..It just make the matter worst....Iraq won't attack Saudi Arabia or occupy it..It's the holy land for Muslims all over the world..Muslim countries won't sit down & let any stupid country to invade Saudi Arabia....

Raffles: Okay from an Non-US point of view, I think that Sadam is enjoying this. He is still in power, he is gaining sympathy from the surrounding Arab states, to the rest of the world America is looking overtly aggressive. The Clinton establishment cannot get rid of Sadam without literally invading Iraq (something which without a Kuwait like excuse is impossible and politically suicidal). The US can't stay in the Gulf region forever spanking SH for every little piece of bold behaviour. It's costing the US Loads of money (those Cruise missiles cost over a million a piece never mind the maintence of keeping forces over there. Basically i think Sadam will continue to harass the US in little steps, a bit of embarassment here and there, if the US responds with military action then it is they who will be critized in the media not Sadam. And everytime public opinion sways against the US Sadam has gained a victory. He doesn't care about his Kurds they were just a tool to provoke US action. Well I hope that wasn't too incoherent.

jg26: I think if the president wants to play Planet Police, and stick his nose in places where it doesn't belong, then the least he could do is drop out of the United Nations, and Destroy Sadam once and for all (rather than tease the United States in hopes of getting elected again), however, his best option would be to keep his mind on the United States, and worry about the Moral's of the United States that he's causing to decay by forcing his lesser standards on us!

hoggc: Can't believe an old Vietnam dove like me has become a hawk but I think we've got to stand by our international agreements . . . such as the no-fly zone in northern Iraq and the dismantling of Hussein's cross-border war machine. The US can't step into every conflict on every continent, of course, but when we're already a party (as in Iraq) or have an historical connection (as with Bosnia), we can't walk away even though it means military action . . . as repugnant as it may be to many of us.

vic2000: I don't think that anybody has ever thought seriously about this whole thing with Iraq. If Saddam was indeed such a troublemaker why is he still in the way? I'm sure that the U.S. could find a way to take him out, if they really wanted to. Is it just that he's helping out the U.S. not only in taking control over areas that they had no control over at all, before, but also by creating lots of impressions to the whole world? Why did he move his troops this exact time? Why not an year ago, or an year after the elections? Did anybody think about that? Do you really think that the U.S. wants to protect the Kurds? Why are they helping the Turks exterminate them then, by not only giving them armament but their blessings also? Maybe they want to protect Saudi Arabia? If Saddam was going to take over Saudi Arabia he would have done so, just after taking over Kuwait. The American Forces, were deployed there two weeks after. Remember? I do, cause I was there. Does anybody really know why the whole thing started? Cause Kuwait was illegaly pumping oil from the neutral zone between Kuwait & Iraq and Kuwait refused to give a share of the profits to Iraq. Does anybody know when this whole thing will end? History will tell us the truth behind this whole story. But as always it will be too late, because innocent people have already died merely for creating impressions. This fight reminds me of the computer game Command & Conquer, where GDI (the good guys) fight NOD (terrorists) over World Peace. That's how we view the whole thing, a game. Well it ain't cause there are people dying and the U.S. isn't doing anything about it, despite their claims of doing so, whith their air strikes.

Doc_Savage: The United States (US) has been providing for the protection of the Middle East (ME) before World War II (WWII), this is because it is of Strategic National Interest (SNI). What this means is that the oil that is located below the Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and the other Gulf States are extremely important to the stability of the US and the rest of the world. Bottomline, its worth defending and keeping from being used as a tool to destabilize the US and other countries. We had supported the Shah of Iran for many years until he was overthrown, and he was almost as bad as the Iraq leader. We support Turkey, another state that rules with an iron fist, not to mention has killed "Kurds," whom America had attacked Iraq for invading recently. We support these un-democratic countries, and others like it for polictical reasons, namely because of SNI. These SNI's are defined by your elected representative in Congress (for those of you who voted--if you didn't vote don't complain--you failed to use your right). If they are not what you believe in, then write your Congressman or Senator, and let him/her know--find out what they think. Another thought ponder, why didn't we take the Iraq leader out in 1991 during the Gulf War. Maybe the Saudi's and other Gulf State countries didn't want it--they know who's in charge, what policies there are, etc., so why let someone else take charge--they could be like Iran--a Fundamentalist/Religious ran country set on ideals that are suppose to be according to the Koran, but are Extremely Anti-American and Western. So we let the Iraq leader stay, where the US and others can control him. Now, was what the President done right--we elected him to make those decisions, and who are we to second guess him. If you don't like his decision, then use your right as mentioned earlier and vote him out of office. Another issue not mentioned in the press is that he has not yet complied with the "War Powers Act," and reported to Congress about his actions, and reasons, etc., so maybe when he does we all will know the reason and then can fully debate it. Until then as stated above we are second guessing his decision. As for my thought, there are a lot more domestic issues that should be eradicated, using the money we wasted on those 27 Cruise Missles at over $ 1 million dollars each--like drugs and violent crime.

Dickj: What a bunch of ego-maniacal, hypocritical, and ready to kill americans we are. Let's see -- we created a problem in a fascist dictator -- now we can't control him and .... well hell, let's just kill him. (Fascists are created by Fascists.) Couldn't get away with it with Noriega, haven't been able to dust Castro, well maybe we can send gazillion million dollar missles in there and score a bullseye. Washington loves it for the political fallout, the pentagon loves it because it convinces the war lovers to subsidize their personal white mans welfare, and the redneck gets a quazi war to salivate over. Get a grip. This little pipsqeek is no threat and you know it. We didn't threaten war when Turkey invaded Iraq. That went against all Nato mandates. We don't get all a-quiver when France invades northern Africa. Or when the missionaries overrun the indigenous indians of South America. We get our backside up when it threatens higher prices at the pump. What Saddam is -- is that bothersome pebble in the sandal we can't stand. If he were a real threat the rest of the arab world would clobber him. But he is steadfastly the one thorn in our side that they love to hate. And we -- well we just keep acting like the bully on the block who keeps getting sand kicked in the face by a skinny kid. If this were written as a novel and made into a feature -- wait a minute -- I think I saw that movie and cheered when right and justice prevailed. Guess it just depends which side of the gaspump you're on.

NWest: If you think the DoD should do its job and defend the United States instead of using our tax dollars to provide defense for other countries, I have a Presidential candidiate for you. His name is Harry Browne and he's a Libertarian and proud of it. He believes we should bring our troops home to defend the U.S.

cipher: Political ploy by Clinton. He is timing his Iraqi strike a little closer to the election, trying to avoid what happened to Bush. The "Most Ethical Administration in History" strikes again!!

DavidMichael: why are we not using the spies and assassin's that everybody knows are employed by the Central Intelligence Agency to kill Saddam "Sodomize me" Hussein and all his fucking followers. Yet I really don't give a shit if he kills off people that live in the Middle East because they are the cause of all of the worlds problems today!!!

INCREDIBLE: IF CLINTON WANTED TO SEND A MESSAGE TO SADAM HE SHOULD HAVE STRUCK WHERE THE KILLING WAS GOING ON. THIS MOVE IS PURELY AND TOTALLY POLITICAL IN NATURE. THE SORRY SOB IS USING AMERICAN MEN AS A PAWN TO GAIN POLITICALLY.

smouer: We historically have never remained neutral in any of our so called "interventions." For example: our support of the Shaw of Iran brought moslem fundamentalist's hatred of the meddling west. And Saddam himself was supported by us originally. I suggest our government really doesn't know what it is doing meddeling in other's affairs and taking sides. Reminds me when I was young, trying to intercede in my siblings fracases. Whenever I inserted myself, both antagonists would turn on me. We seem to have a bunch of momma's boys in chargein our government, who want to go help anyone who wimpers and whines, regardless of the merit (Example: he Moslems in Bosnia). We have a sophomoric administration trying to save the world from itself.

szaz: What are we doing there? WE aren't doing anything.the government that professes to represent all americans is once again doing nothing but protecting its own interests. not the interests of the country or the nation in general.The interests of the government higher ups,the top 5%,the haves,while the have nots are still nothing in the eyes of those in power.So.that out of the way,the us is sending its pawns(troops)to iraq to protect its oil interest,to try in vain to assert itself when Saddam continues to laugh at them,and to make some sort of stand or image as this international police force,(hm, I coulda SWORN that was the purpose of the UN peacekeepers),when all they really are is an international bully covering its own ass,and wallowing in its misused power.I pity the troops over there.some don't want to be,and know better.the rest are convinced by the system by the system that raised them that it's their duty and honor(?) to go aross

naving: The US has a mandate in the Global cummunity to protect the human rights of all citizens of the world. Iraq signed the UN charter that pledging that they will work towards the goal of abolishing human rights violations. Therefore, Iraq's persecution of the Kurds is illegal and the US recognised that. If Iraq does not like this they can drop out of the UN which will result in the dropping of their say in world affairs, their eventual seat on the Security Council, and all UN protection, trade and any other treaties.

Rachel: Boy, you guys are cynical. Granted, the pre-election timing is nice, for Clinton; it's probably going to boost his ratings. But almost everyone who's posted so far is looking at this in a very simplistic way -- ie, either it's "right" for us to intervene, or it's "wrong." Diplomacy isn't that simple. Clinton may be acting to protect oil interests. But he may also be acting, in the US's now-familiar role, in an attempt to intervene and prevent Saddam Hussein from destroying a people. In WWII the US waited a really long time to intervene when a dictator was systematically attacking certain peoples; several million died before we, the US, saw fit to get up off our butts and do something about it. Perhaps this time Clinton's trying not to make the same mistake.

Now that you've read through the responses, add a few thoughts of your own.