|
|
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
09-09-2002, 01:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think that getting rid of Soddom(SP) is a good thing.
Soddom(SP?)is a sociopath. His only goal is to have power. He has no problem with killing people. It is a well known fact that he killed his way into power. He has no guilt with killing people who disagree with him. He used chemical weapons on his own country. He will kill anyone who disagrees with him. He will also work attack the US if he can. He needs to die. Slee 
|
|
#3
09-09-2002, 08:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No. This would not be a "war." This would be an unprovoked attack on another country. This is illegal under international law. This is why Bush & Co. want nothing to do with the International Criminal Court.
This nation of "Christians" of ours has its collective head in the sand. People in the US are the most ignorant and unsophisticated the world has ever known. Their source of information is strictly the US propaganda machine. They have zero idea of the world ouside their borders. People in the US should ask themselves why world public opinion is overwhelmingly against a US attack on Iraq. This includes the governments of all Nato countries, excluding Britian, and the Arab League.
|
|
#4
09-09-2002, 11:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with galen, and thank you for having the courage to say it! "Getting rid of" Saddam does not a proper war make. All this talk about 'pre-emptive action' is just a cover for what amounts to the bully on the playground beating up who he can. We can't flout international law, or it will come back to haunt us.
|
|
#6
09-09-2002, 01:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No one has stated how, exactly, we're going to replace Hussein IF we manage to find the bastard. Remember Osama bin Laden, dead or alive? Yea, neither does the rest of the Oprah-watching population. So we find him and shoot him, what then? Another debacle like Afghanistan?
|
|
#7
09-09-2002, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I also agree with galen.
We're the United States. We're supposed to be the good guys. We're not supposed to throw our weight around. Fair, honest people don't do that. We're supposed to be slow to anger. We're supposed to only use force when there is absolutely no other option and we're forced into it. We used to go on and on about how wrong it is for powerful countries (such as the USSR) to engage in military operations in other countries. (Even though we would do the same.) Now we're the ones who want to invade another country. Iraq would be better off with a different leader. As sleestak said, Saddam is an evil person who gasses his own people. But it's not our place to invade his country. We promised the Kurds that we would back them up if they rose up in revolution. Well, we lied. We should have backed up our promise. If we want to "free" Iraq, then we should let the people who live there do it. Help them out if they ask for help, but let them do it. I know "we" are worried that Saddam might make a nuclear or biological weapon and use it in the U.S. But the U.S. is not, in my opinion, a nation that uses "First Strike". Good guys don't do that. In my opinion, Bush is a blithering idiot who can't string words together to make a coherent sentence. And he wants to lead us into war? To finish his daddy's work? The man is going to start WWIII. To me, he sounds like someone who wants to bring on the Apocalypse so that the biblical prophesies can be fulfilled and all of the Righteous can dwell in the kingdom of heaven for ever and ever amen. Dubya is a scary, scary man. So, no; I don't think we should invade Iraq. I think we should work through the United Nations to resolve the situation diplomatically. We can always use force later if we are forced to do so (for example, if Saddam attacks the U.S. or our allies first); but if you start out with bloodshed, where do you go from there? (Geez, that turned into a rant. Sorry if I've made an ass of myself.)
__________________
'Never say "no" to adventure. Always say "yes". Otherwise you'll lead a very dull life.' -- Commander Caractacus Pott, R.N. (Retired) 'Do not act incautiously when confronting a little bald wrinkly smiling man.' -- Lu-Tze
|
|
#8
09-09-2002, 04:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Magickly Delicious, from dictionary.com:
bully: A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people It must be nice to so easily fit the USA into this definition. Personally, I'd equate this more to the SWAT sniper waiting for a clear shot to take down a bankrobber who's taken hostages. But then, I'm a bit biased in this matter.
|
|
#10
09-09-2002, 05:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I used to think we should attack, now I'm not so sure.
I think it's silly that we are mulling a pre-emptive against him, on the slim chance he would attack us. By that logic, he would justified in pre-emptively attacking us, as we've made it clear we intend to wipe him off the face of the earth.
|
|
#11
09-09-2002, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
And if we want to take it back, we'd all probably be dead, because we would've been justified in attacking the USSR (and they would've been justified in attacking us) because they just might attack us. And the USSR actually HAD nuclear warheads. THOUSANDS of them. It's funny that this entire first strike doctrine relies entirely on "because we say so."
Yea, Saddam may be looking for nuclear weapons. So's every country in the world. Pakistan and India and their nukes are far, far more likely to use theirs at the moment.
|
|
#12
09-09-2002, 11:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes. There is I believe enough evidence that Saddam assisted Al Queda in sept 11th. Also, Saddam with Nukes would be a major destabilizing factor in the region, because we know from previous actions that he would be willing to use them in a military support manner, and even if he wouldn't use them directly, he would use them as a form of blackmail to support his expansionism.
and galen, nope, we want nothing to do with the 'international court' because it impinges on our sovernity, and is not recognised as a binding court by the Constitution, nor does the court recognise the Constitution in turn.
|
|
#14
09-10-2002, 07:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I agree with World Eater in that you can't justify attacking Iraq based on the chance that he might attack us one day. That rationale could be applied to most of the nations on earth. Bush is willing to start a war, even if it turns the United States into a pariah nation, and that scares me. He doesn't support the International Court because he might end up before it one day.
__________________
Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol.
|
|
#15
09-10-2002, 08:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This whole thing sorta blows my mind. Whether or not the US wants to get rid of Saddam it doesn't need to be couched like that. Why not just say recent world events makes it imperative that we enforce the U.N. inspections which until now have been lax , something we have every right to do. Why talk about going to war. Why not just say that we will be inspecting as the treaty allows for and if we are stopped we will do whatever is necessary to allow the UN inspectors access.
|
|
#16
09-10-2002, 09:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No
I say absolutely no. There's no proof he was involved in the Sept 11 attacks, and people in the west have been bleating since the first gulf war that he's months away from making nuclear weapons. Since he poses no immediate threat to the west, they have no justification under international law to attack him.
Therefore, if we are to attack him, that means we will probably be acting in contravention of international law and without a U.N. mandate. The democracies of the west are founded on the basis of freedom and the rule of law. That means that no matter how undesireable someone is considered, be they criminal, agitator, critic or revolutionary, we cannot break our own rules to try and attack them. And that's ignoring the numerous practical issues. Like, does the west want a fundamentalist Islamic republic in Iraq? Would another Taliban be better than Saddam? If we attack, would he be able to accelerate his weapons program or kill large numbers of Kurds before he was defeated? Favorite quote time: Quote:
|
|
#17
09-10-2002, 10:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think this is a bad, BAD idea.
I recall one (of several) of the reasons the 7/11 attacks are thought to have happened in the first place was because the U.S. government was throwing it's weight around in the oil-rich regions with little to no regard for the native peoples of this area. I fear that an unprovoked attack would encourage more terrorism. Let's say we go in, wipe out Saddam & Co. and install a freindly government. How is that going to sit with the natives? The newscasts I've seen say that the people of Iraq are fairly satisfied with their leader. It's just the U.S. that wants him out of there. Why? We are being told that there is evidence of weapons of mass destruction. I will say I totally, emphatically support unrestricted U.N. weapons inspections to make it clear what they have and what they don't. And while we're talking about it, don't plenty of countries have some form of mass destruction weapons? Let's be aware the the most recent, horrible attack the U.S. suffered was NOT from an ICBM. Forgive my lack of blind trust in my president, but I have a hard time ignoring that the last time we found ourselves at odds with Iraq, it was with our current president's dad leading the way. Please correct me if I'm wrong (honestly), but doesn't the Bush family owe a lot of their wealth due to the oil industry? I have this sneaking feeling that our president has an agenda beyond "Keeping the world safe from those who would threaten our FREEDOM!" Lone remaining superpower or not, I don't see a bright future for the U.S. if the administration continues to insist on unilateral agressions that are at odds with the rest of the world.
|
|
#18
09-10-2002, 10:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Attack Saddam because he is advocating international terrorism?
And a war is not such a big danger to innocent people? OK...I am biased too, living in a country that is a bordering neighbor to Iraq....but come to tghink of it. We have had a major terrorist organisation operating within our border, and these guys killed about 30,000 people in 15 years. We had concrete proof that these guys had training camps in Iraq, Syria and Iran, but nobody in the world considered declaring war on these countries at the period. The problem now seems solved, due to a very skilled anti gueriila operation, played with the same rules as the terrorists themselves. Declaring war on a country, and wipin it off the map is no solution to terrorism. Experience hath speaketh!!
|
|
#19
09-10-2002, 10:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
a: supreme power especially over a body politic b: freedom from external control: AUTONOMY c: controlling influence Yeah, it's great to be sovereign... To not have to answer to anybody whether or not we commit a crime. To throw our weight around with impunity. To be the boss of everybody else. But is that fair to the other nations that we share this planet with?
|
|
#20
09-10-2002, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A war with Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States. I expect Iran will end up controlling much of Iraq after we overthrough the Baath party.
This thread belongs in great debates.
|
|
#21
09-10-2002, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#22
09-10-2002, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No. For the exact reasons Johnny LA posted. With him 100%. IF an attack on Iraq is to be made, I want to see some real proof instead of Post-9/11 spin. And preferably, I wouldn't want it to be a US operation either. I think more pressure should be excercised on Iraq to admit UN inspectors again, but I don't think "America will bomb your ass" should be one of the means to excercise pressure.
Also, listen to Watermelon Man. Read up on the man he talks about, Ocalan. While I'm against the notion that Turkey sentence this man to death, and I do recognise the Kurds' struggle for their own state, the Turkish government did an excellent job in catching a terrorist that threatened their nation. Something the US so far has been incapable of. Saddam is an asshole, but he's crippled. His impact on the world, even the Arab world, is miniscule compared to where he stood in 1990. Unless there's concrete proof that Iraq has vast amounts of nukes on the ready, Saddam is the perfect example of "know your enemy". He ain't going anywhere, and he's relatively harmless to the outside world, including the US. A new regime might not be so predictable. As for the notion that this is all about protecting the innocent Iraqi citizens, give me a friggin' break. That bullshit didn't work in the Gulf War, and it won't work now, mr Bush.
|
|
#24
09-10-2002, 08:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Daoloth: Outside of this message board, I find it impossible to hold an intelligent conversation (debate, if you will) with most people. It's bloody difficult to present arguments that I think are well thought-out and logical when the other person replies with something like, "All's I know is...", or gets a glassy expression and just loses interest.
Maybe it's just me or my style, but it seems to me that outside of this message board most of my fellow Americans I talk to just don't care. And if they do care, they operate on an emotional rather than logical level. YMMV.
|
|
#25
09-10-2002, 08:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry for the hijack. I'm just frustrated by the path my country seems to be taking.
|
|
#26
09-10-2002, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Most people don't want to hear that the reasons for the terrorists attacking us were probably not "cause they hated freedom and liberty". What are they, Cobra? No one wants to hear that this seething hatred of the United States may actually stem from policies pursued in the Middle East over a number of years.
|
|
#27
09-11-2002, 10:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
We don't know for sure whether or not he has nukes or bio weapons because he gave the UN inspectors the boot. That is why we need to go back. I believe that rigorous enforcement of these conditions are the only way to ensure our security.
|
|
#29
09-11-2002, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As far as I'm concerned, "we" is whoever wants to take part in the action. If only the US is willing, it will be only the US, and I am comfortable with that. I am frankly surprised that there was no international call for action when Iraq violated their agreement with the UN, and remain surprised that so many still do not want to force Iraq to uphold the agreement.
|
|
#30
09-11-2002, 11:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I do agree with that sentiment, I just think that in the current situation, enforcing the UN resolutions should be anything but a US-only task. For one, to protect the US from opening itself to widespread criticism -or worse- from the Muslim world. And also, to give the signal that disobeying internationally enforced restrictions and resolutions is something that the international community won't stand for, not the US alone.
In short, the UN needs to grow a pair of balls when it comes the the enforcement of their resolutions.
|
|
#32
09-11-2002, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I had to read that post twice K2.
That seems a pretty accurate summation of what the govt would like us to believe.
|
|
#33
09-11-2002, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
World Eater not the entire gov't - many people in the gov't (mostly on one side of the political spectrum) don't think of Iraq as a threat. When Congress cried foul about the President not going to them and the President agreed they now say they will get to it after the elections (WTF is that!).
The funny thing is that I see many people on one side saying that we must cut back on fossil fuels because it might cause global warming - meaning the risk is too great to take a chance that it may be true. But when we are looking at this man actually building the bomb with "To: NYC" written on the side those same people say we don't have enough info.
|
|
#34
09-11-2002, 02:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
World Eater not the entire gov't - many people in the gov't (mostly on one side of the political spectrum) don't think of Iraq as a threat. When Congress cried foul about the President not going to them and the President agreed they now say they will get to it after the elections (WTF is that!).
The funny thing is that I see many people on one side saying that we must cut back on fossil fuels because it might cause global warming - meaning the risk is too great to take a chance that it may be true. But when we are looking at this man actually building the bomb with "To: NYC" written on the side those same people say we don't have enough info.
|
|
#35
09-11-2002, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
k2dave-
Can you cite corroborating evidence about Saddam's bomb in NYC? Anything more specific than the nebulous "weapons of mass destruction" would be preferred. I would love to read it and I'm sure it would convince me to your way of thinking, because I have both friends and family in N.Y. and I'll need to warn them about the bomb aimed at the city.
|
|
#37
09-11-2002, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The U.S. can only lose by unilaterally invading Iraq. Sure, we can kick their asses from here to Kingdome Come on a military scale, but it would be political devastation. There is NO popular support, and the world community would castigate us for it. It's time for our government to state clearly that we have no intention of waging war on Iraq unless it commits an overt act of aggression. OK, people may die, and perhaps right here on our own shores, but until it happens, the U.S. would be foolish in the extreme to do anything but lay low and wait. If Saddam is the madman that many think he is, he will provide an excuse sooner or later,(hopefully AFTER the current administration is out of the White House)and our military can visit holy hell on him perhaps with the blessings of even the other Middle Eastern countries.
What Bush is proposing is nuts, based on the information we have at this point.
|
|
#38
09-11-2002, 06:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There comes a time when folks have to take a stand and I find it puzzling that so many folks whom I would characterize as liberal (supporting free speech and women's rights, being against (at least American) nuclear weapons, ranting about the abuse of human rights by the US) have an issue with us going in and dumping on Saddam. Or, for that matter, just about any country in the Middle-East, including Saudi Arabia
Reasons? General Patton's will do fine, just substitute nations as neccessary: From his Speech to the 3rd Army There are three reasons why we are fighting this war. The first is because we are determined to preserve our traditional liberties. Some crazy German bastards decided they were supermen and that it was their holy mission to rule the world. They've been pushing people around all over the world, looting, killing, and abusing millions of innocent men, women, and children. They were getting set to do the same thing to us. We had to fight to prevent being subjugated. The second reason we are fighting is to defeat and wipe out the Nazis who started all this goddamned son-of-bitchery. They didn't think we could or would fight, and they weren't the only ones who thought that, either. There are certain people back home who had the same idea. Both were wrong. The third reason we are fighting is because men like to fight. They always have and they always will. Some sophists and other crackpots deny that. They don't know what they're talking about. They are either goddamned fools or cowards, or both. Men like to fight, and if they don't they're not real men. If you don't like to fight, I don't want you around. You'd better get out before I kick you out. But there is one thing to remember. In war, it takes more than the desire to fight to win. You've got to have more than guts to lick the enemy. You must also have brains. It takes brains and guts to win wars. A man with guts but no brains is only half a soldier. We licked the Germans in Africa and Sicily because we had brains as well as guts. We're going to lick them in Europe for the same reason. That's all and good luck.
|
|
#39
09-11-2002, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If you're not a target you shouldn't just say "people may die" and act like it's "OK". Some of us ARE targets and don't particularly want to wait because you non-targets want a few of us to die before we do anything. If Saddam does have WMD, the twin towers will be nothing but a warm-up if he manages a successful attack. I'm not interested in finding out how successful he might be.
|
|
#40
09-11-2002, 06:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's do it this way. Everyone in this country that wants to go to war with Iraq, put your money where your mouth is. Sign up, and you'll get an M16 and some BDUs. Not up for fighting in the trenches? Ok, go be a cook or a mechanic or something. There's over 200 ways to be a soldier! Ever see the commercial?
I heard it said the other day that war with Iraq wouldn't be about terrorism, or ousting Saddam, or even oil interests--it would be about protecting Israel. Now I don't necessarily believe that, but it was an interesting point. I think Saddam would be much more capable/willing to mess with Israel than the U.S. (but he would also know that putting a nuke/bio weapon into Tel Aviv or something would ensure massive retaliation) Of course, "Israel" would be so far down on the average American's list of reasons to go to war that it could never happen unless there was something that drastic. Again, I'm not saying I believe that, but in a warped way it makes some sense, and I've never really heard it discussed. All in all, I think it comes down to this. Invading Iraq is such a terrible can of worms. Americans, and probably a lot of them, will die to oust Saddam. I don't think that's a worthwhile trade. And then what do we do after the "war" when there's no government and the country is ruined (although a lot of it already is). I think most importantly is this: Saddam loves himself more than he hates America. Why would Saddam risk his power and position by provoking America? He knows that right now he has carte blanche to be evil as long as he leaves Israel and the U.S. allies alone. Even if Saddam had nukes or whatever (and I don't see any reason to believe that he does), he wouldn't use them except as a last resort--Saddam wouldn't Hitler himself when the Allies are closing in on his bunker--that's when he does his worst. There are more oppressive regimes (African warlords) and much more dangerous nation-states (North Korea?) for us to bother with Iraq.
|
|
#41
09-11-2002, 07:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can someone please enlighten me on how mr Hussein is planning on actually transporting his supposed A-bomb to NYC, and why he didn't choose a more surprising target?
Boxcar, if you're seriously comparing the global impact of WWII Germany with 2002 Iraq, then all debate is futile, I'm afraid.
|
|
#42
09-11-2002, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#43
09-11-2002, 07:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not "well put" at all. If you (World Eater) and Cheesestake want a little piece of Sadsam I suggest you join the military. Perhaps you can take my Husband's place in the Marine Corps. After all he's only been in for 17 years, and there is no way that I will allow him to go to Iraq to raise the approval rating of a President who not only has personal issues with the leaders of several sovereign nations, but believes that war is good for the approval ratings.
IMHO
|
|
#44
09-11-2002, 08:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There are some points that I agree with made for the opposite though.
|
|
#45
09-11-2002, 08:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's follow the logic here:
We fought Saddam the first time over territory, not him. He didn't use his WMDs because he knew damn well we'd nuke him, and he probably doesn't want to die anymore than any other human being. This time we're going in with the express purpose of capturing or killing him. So why WOULDN'T he use WMDs and take as many Americans as he could down with him?
|
|
#46
09-11-2002, 08:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Coldfire
Quote:
This is probably more a great debate, but I think several parallels (is that spelled right? I wish there was a spellcheck on here) could be drawn between Hitler and Saddam. I think Saddam 2002 is a greater danger than Hitler 1941. Hitler had shown great reluctance to use gas on the battlefield (Saddam has used it on the Kurds and the Iranians). Beyond U-boat attacks, Hitler 1941 had little to no capacity to strike the US. Iraq easily could and, I believe, has through deniable ie terrorist, means. But debate is probably futile which is why this question is in IMHO instead of Great Debates. I think the US has every right to take whatever action is neccessary for its self-defense. We have been at war since at least the capture of the US embassy in Tehran and the hostilities are being perpetrated by terrorist organizations which receive encouragement, backing, and intelligence from several nation-states. Among these are the governments of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia (where, lest we forget, almost all of the hijackers and the money for the Trade Center attack came from). I don't believe we can negotiate with these people. I believe the only thing they will understand, and the only thing that will work to secure any sort of peace, is the massive and overwhelming use of force to destroy their outmoded, stagnant, oppressive, corrupt, and useless governments. To borrow from Heinlein, those who think force never solved anything obviously haven't studied WW2 closely enough.
|
|
#47
09-11-2002, 08:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't want my country to be harmed any more than anyone else here but if the sole criteria for declaring war on another country is the presence of WoMD, (which Iraq has NOT been proven to even have) then we will have to declare war on most of the world. The Soviet Union had weapons of mass destruction for decades... were you advocating we go over there and attack the USSR in decades past? It's a good thing we didn't, since we didn't have the foresight to see that the USSR would come around on it's own. Please note: the Russian President was the FIRST world leader to officially offer his support to the U.S. after the 7/11 attacks.
Has the U.S. EVER had any success in ousting a regime in a far-away land? If we oust a regime, we have to stay to make sure it stays ousted. Look at Afganistan. To how many America-hating foreign nations do we want to send our soldiers? I have too many friends serving in the armed forces to agree that we should throw them over there in harm's way unless it is for a damn good reason! The most important battle we have to wage is the battle against global terrorism. In doing so we need the cooperative united effort with every possible nation on this planet. Like it or not, the U.S. NEEDS the assistance of the rest of the world to accomplish this. But hey... if proof comes out that Iraq does indeed have WoMD and has them aimed at the U.S., I agree: let's take him out and hope for the best. The problem is, we don't have proof that they have anything of the sort.
|
|
#48
09-12-2002, 05:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Boxcar, with all due respect, you seem to have missed an important part when I said: Boxcar, if you're seriously comparing the global impact of WWII Germany with 2002 Iraq, then all debate is futile, I'm afraid. Yes, Iraq is a more viable thread to the US -at least on US soil- than Nazi Germany ever was: the world is a smaller place these days. But Iraq and the US are not the only two nations in the world, and the impact of 2002 Iraq on the planet as a whole is negligable compared to the impact Nazi Germany made. To state otherwise would require actual proof, for example evidence that Iraq DOES have weapons of mass destruction. So far, no compelling evidence seems to be forthcoming. Hence, the whole thing reeks of spin.
|
|
#49
09-12-2002, 05:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The thing that really bothers me is: evidence is unavailable because Saddam kicked out the required inspectors. At one point the UN claimed they needed inspectors to assure Saddam didn't develop WMD. Now, the inspectors are gone 4 years, but the UN claims "Saddam doesn't have any" and "There is no evidence." If they needed inspectors to get evidence, and there are no inspectors, how can they be sure?
Does everybody really think he kicked out the weapons inspectors so he could more easily develop medicines and tractor parts?
|
|
#50
09-12-2002, 06:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I kind of get the feeling we're all watching a global session of good cop-bad cop. The U.S. is standing in the corner holding the bat while the U.N. is saying, "Just let the inspectors back in and I might be able to keep him off you".
As for whether we should or not, that depends entirely on the evidence, which no one, as of yet, has decided to share with me, so I don't know.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
