|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
What did Saddam Hussein do??
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Where is all this talk of war with Iraq coming from?? I don't remember seeing or hearing any signs of an Iraqi attack in any form on America or American interests. I realize that there are Iraqi weapons research facilities that have been dancing with the UN but that is not a part of what I have been hearing recently.
As soon as the Bush administration was back at the controls (as in within 36 hours of Bush's inaugeration), they struck an Iraqi military target with out any real recourse or an expression of regret. Anyone remember that??
Any ideas, guys?? What the hell is going on and why??
Posted by: SKYHN
Better safe than sorry.
Posted by: -EG-raynor
the reason they are knocking out iraqi stuff is because of saddam ... they want him out of command
Posted by: SKYHN
Saddam is like the 2nd most major threat to the united states right now(Terrorism is the 1st). Saddam is not only good buddies with Osama, but he has chemical weapons, and may even have Nuclear weapons. Be a lot better to go in and finnaly take him out so that we dont have something happen 100x worse than September 11th.
Posted by: Chako
Actually, it is the American Government and their stupid foreign policies..and in retrospect...the avg American popluation that lets them do what they want on the World scene.
Ever wonder why the US is not loved by most nations in the world..it has nothing to do with being the most powerful nation. It has everything to do with stupid crap like this.
Bush Jr just want's to top the old man.
Regardless of all the fear hype...Iraq was never a threat to the US. Iraq is a threat to US intentions in the area. Nothing more...nothing less.
Posted by: -EG-raynor
its not iraq where worried about its saddam thats getting every1 scared
Posted by: -Memnoch-
Do some research.
Saddam is very dangerous. He has in fact been a threat to a large number of different countries.
He has used chemical weapons on at least three different occasions. Once on his own people.
He had invested a great deal of money into the "Supergun" aimed at Israel. A large static cannon that could launch any missile at a target with stunning accuracy. Three such weapons were discovered in various states of construction after the gulf war.
He had amassed one of the largest armed forces in the Middle East and chose to attack Kuwait. A nation that is a central distribution point and producer of crude oil. His forces did not target military targets. They attacked everyone. Rather then stop this attack as the UN and other Nations had urged, he continued to attack and pillage the spoils of Kuwait. Only after his defeat was all but a certainty did he pull his troops out and then only after burning all the oil fields in Kuwait. Creating one of the largest and most destructive oil spills in modern history.
He launched missiles at random at Israel again targeting non-military targets. He made open threats to use chemical weapons on Israelis. Many armed forces involved in the Gulf war exhibit symptoms that indicate chemical weapons were used on the battlefield.
His development of both Nuclear weapons and chemical weapons alone required the world’s attention.
Iraq is controlled by Sadam in a totalitarian type of control. Every aspect of the nation is ruled with an iron fist. The people of this nation are for lack of a better term “brainwashed.” They see only what Sadam allows them to see. They are fed lies over and over again. The live in a world of fear. A world of lies.
As the Gulf war ended a treaty was enacted with Sadam that allowed UN weapons inspectors to study or inspect known and/or suspected chemical and nuclear weapons development sites in Iraq. Sadam agreed to this as a condition of ending the war. But as time passed and the Inspectors began finding more and more evidence that the development continued, they were not allowed to inspect the sites. At times the inspectors were detained or threatened by the Iraqi military.
Among other conditions of the treaty “no fly” zones were established. Sadam has continued to press the limits of these arrangements.
Simple conditions were agreed upon to ensure the safety of the world community and more directly neighboring countries from Sadam and his forces. But as time progressed those conditions were not met.
Why did the US and other nations take these actions?
I am of the opinion that if we didn’t, no one else would have or could have. I am also of the opinion that if we didn’t act and allowed Iraq to march into any nation without a response, the world community would be far worse off and possibly in a large scale war.
The US is dammed if we do, and dammed if we don’t.
Consider the effect of not acting quick enough in Bosnia.
Europeans complaining we are complacent.
Or Europeans complaining we did nothing, as innocent people die a horrible death.
Vs.
The Americans need to mind their own business. They act like bullies.
Bla Bla Bla.
Here is a thought straight from the tainted mind of Memnoch>
Fine, No Problem. From now on- America will do nothing in these situations. We will not involve ourselves in the wars and disputes of other third world nations. We will sit back and just shake our heads and say” Gee, that’s too bad”
We will just sit at home in America and build up our forces. A huge wall of defense is all we will concern ourselves with. We will only ensure our own safety. To hell with everyone else.
Do you really want to see how long that will last?
Do you really want to see how that plays out?
Let me know, so I can start stocking up on survival gear.
Posted by: redwench
saddam no more wants bin laden around than we do. theres a reason why bin laden has never hid in iraq, but rather verious other african and mideast countries. iraq actually has a very westernized society, with women being able to work, dress, and act relatively freely. iraq is indeed a dictatorship, but not a religious one, its quite secular. hussein doesnt want bin laden there at all.
personally, i felt at the time that what we did to liberate kuwait 10 years ago was necessary. but this ongoing nonsense is getting ridiculous. hussein is being stubborn and uncooperative, and were war mongering. just lovely. the us needs to get its fingers out of everyones pie and concentrate more on its own problems.
oh, and people, stop believing all the government propaganda. everything that comes from the government isnt the word of god.
Posted by: Kdr Kane
Quite right on all counts, Memnoch.
The U.S. may be out of all "policing" of foreign countries soon anyway. Since most countries have agreed to start a world court to dispense "justice", the U.S. has decided to not put Americans in the situation of being possible targets of such a court. That's why we are now pulling out of Bosnia.
It looks as if I'll get my wish of pulling out of those countries.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
We are all aware of the heinous history that Hussein has and it is no secret that he is bad news, to put it lightly. But, the thing is he's not doing anything right now!! Why the hell is he now a military target?? Because he has been a naughty boy building weapons, keeping secrets, treating his people like livestock and flirting with the no fly zones?? Why the hell didn't we do something when he was actually doing these things??
Yes, we went into Bosnia and got involved in a situation that wasn't happening to Americans or on American soil but that was in a situation which there were greivous violations of humans rights being commited by a despot faction and the UN was involved in that action. In other words, most of the free world agreed something must be done and it was actually happening at the time.
This is different though. Iraq hasn't done anything. The dictator ruling Iraq hasn't done anything he hasn't been doing for years. Why are we attacking now??
I couldn't figure it out: for most of the year, since a few months after the tragedy in New York, the Bush administration has been warning the public frequently to keep an eye out for terrorists, be aware of terrorism and assuring us that we would see more acts of terror. Meanwhile, government installations have had increasingly lax levels in security. It doesn't add up. Now, the other shoe drops. . .the Bush administration wants public approval for a war waged in the name of the righteous striking against terror. The government wants you to think about terror and hate terror so they can do things in the name of eradicating terror.
Posted by: Kdr Kane
 Quote:
|
We are all aware of the heinous history that Hussein has and it is no secret that he is bad news, to put it lightly. But, the thing is he's not doing anything right now!! Why the hell is he now a military target?? Because he has been a naughty boy building weapons, keeping secrets, treating his people like livestock and flirting with the no fly zones?? Why the hell didn't we do something when he was actually doing these things??
|
Clinton/Gore...
Posted by: redwench
of course they do. how do people think hitler got germany to go to war and accept the holocaust? hitler wasnt a dictator, he was democratically elected. but he blamed a lot of the countrys problems on other nations and the jews. each step was small, but he (and im using he as the group in power) continually pushed these ideas, and passed laws supporting them. after a few years of this, it finally became the war we all know and love. the people of germany werent particularly evil, or stupid. they were just brainwashed by years of hearing the same message, which just happened to be what the nazi (political party, btw) agenda was.
the job of a good citizen is not to believe or disbelieve in government propaganda, but rather to find out the facts, weigh them along with his beliefs, and come to a rational conclusion. if it agrees with the government position, fine. should it not, you do what it takes to either change the government position, or live with it if its not that important to you.
Posted by: -EG-raynor
Posted by: Fenix2004
Quote:
Originally posted by AngstMerchant
But, the thing is he's not doing anything right now!!
|
Bush is trying to get him before he does something. He harbors and supports terrorism and therefore is a threat that should be eliminated.
Posted by: redwench
um, before he does something? well leave out harbors and supports terrorism, since none of us knows that one way or the other. you dont bomb and kill people on the off chance they will do something. that is, if youre an ethical and rational person. thats like saying someone with postpartum depression should be locked up because she will kill her children. the movie minority report is the perfect example. you dont go around interfering in other peoples/societies lives because of what you think they will do. you wouldnt want them doing it to us, would you?
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by SKYHN
Saddam is not only good buddies with Osama
|
As was the CIA before he went rogue. Should we bomb the pentagon?
SOUNDS GOOD TO ME!
After all, the CIA uses terrorist tactics freely and at will.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Actually, there is no proof that Osama bin-Laden has ever met Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, as the target of a country that has already bulldogged him previously, I would bet a steak dinner that old Saddam isn't crazy about having bin-Laden as a guest.
Posted by: Null Actor
bah! don't let facts get in the way of the truth!
WE MUST JUSTIFY THE BOMBING AT ANY COST!
WE DO IT IN THE NAME OF GOOD!
WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Posted by: Gunslinger
I will open with this: There are things involved in these affairs that none of us know, and none of us will ever know. That's the bottom line - and more than likely, these facts unknown weigh heavily on our actions politically.
Understand that Saddam is not just now becoming a target. He's been a target for 20 years. It's not as if he became good all of a sudden, and we have no reason to keep both eyes on him, or even attack him.
Of course, he isn't really threatening us at home right now (on a military level), but summing up the situation based on that detail is asinine. We will not only protect ourselves at home, we will protect our interests abroad. One such interest, and a friggin huge one, is oil. Saddam himself isn't sitting on the biggest oil supply in the world, but that region of the world can definitely be called that. One country isn't what effects our oil interests, but rather the balance of power and the state of politics in the region. That is one of the interests we are protecting. If power shifts, and oil becomes insanely expensive, or there's an embargo alltogether, then we have an economic crisis passed on to us in the states. Then, it becomes a threat to us at home. We have other interests in the region as well, namely Israel. Our interest is threatened by Saddam, and others. We will protect them. Period.
Yes, we should bomb countries and kill people on the chance (not really so 'off') that they will do something. It's defense. Is it required that so many people die, or so many planes be shot down, etc, before we do something to stop it?
Answer: No. And are we just jumping in blindly, with no evidence, and doing these things in the Middle East? No. This isn't a real life reflection of Minority Report (for those who have seen the film).
Quote:
|
Ever wonder why the US is not loved by most nations in the world
|
Who gives a shit? Is it my feeling that, through our foreign policy and military actions abroad, we should also consider the opinion and feelings of the citizens of Europe or anywhere else?
No. **** 'em. Let them defend their interests how they will. Let us defend ours how we will. Oh no! We're not the most loved country in the world? Hold on, while the citizens (and government) of the United States shed one solitary tear.
And of course, nothing that I have said here, or that has been said anywhere in this thread, can possibly be conclusive enough to cover all the bases in this argument. Our actions abroad are a result of our own politics. To actually come out and state my feelings, I'm of the opinion that we should press Saddam, and keep pressing him, and keep pressing him, until we have 1) no more reason to press or 2) nothing left of him to press. Whichever comes first. His regime is a threat to American interests. Some that we know about, and probably some that we don't and never will. I would rather go in and neutralize a potential problem, than let it become a big problem before any action is taken.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I will open with this: There are things involved in these affairs that none of us know, and none of us will ever know. That's the bottom line - and more than likely, these facts unknown weigh heavily on our actions politically.
|
Nothing the government does should be kept a secret. After any operation, political, military, whatever, is taken, reasons for that operation should be a matter of public knowledge. Else, how would you be able to trust your government?
And regarding the oil thing... that always makes me laugh. We've had the technology for oil independance for decades. The only reason we are still dependant on oil, is because of capitalism. Oil companies buy up patents that could run them out of business (and make the world a significantly better place at the same time), and then sit on them. Bury them. Patent them, and then sue anyone who re-researches the technology.
Oil isn't in our interest anymore, nor should it be.
Posted by: Null Actor
Image courtesy of Leslie Nassar
Posted by: Gunslinger
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
Nothing the government does should be kept a secret. After any operation, political, military, whatever, is taken, reasons for that operation should be a matter of public knowledge. Else, how would you be able to trust your government?
|
That's a little bit idyllic for my tastes. Stuff should be known. I know there are things that the government doesn't tell me, and some of these things influence actions, but that doesn't create a lack of trust by any means. Contrary to what anyone may think (or say, in a display of idiocy), the US government isn't trying to run its citizens into the ground. We elect our representatives to make these decisions, whether they end up being the right ones or the wrongs ones.
Your philosophy exists, in this context, but I don't buy it. This isn't ignorance showing - it's faith in the system showing (subtle difference, I suppose). It really doesn't matter if we know about some of these things or not. They will influence political decision either way.
Perhaps the oil companies buy up these patents. A remarkable theme here. They're protecting their interests. The rule of the day it seems. That doesn't change the fact that oil is an interest. Cars need it. An industrialized nation needs it to run machinery to drive factories to produce products to feed the economy. I could go on, but why bother.
There may be better ways, but the current method is oil. It's vital. We will protect it.
Posted by: Null Actor
Blind faith in the government, and ignorance, are the same thing. You can have faith in the government, but if it's not tempered with the need to know, then don't fool yourself, it is ignorance.
And protecting oil interests is only a short term solution. The long term solution, which would benefit everyone greatly, would be a move to hydrogen and electric powered machinery. It exists, and has existed for a while.
Posted by: Gunslinger
Who said anything about blind faith?
I didn't. You seem to think it's blind. Blind is not seeing anything. Seeing most, but having some things hidden, does not make me blind by any stretch of the imagination.
And in terms of machinery, they're electrically powered already. It's thing slike industrial lubricants that keep them running...that are refined from....you guessed it....crude oil.
Posted by: redwench
yes, sir slinger makes a good point, we need to protect our interest in the region due to oil. but we arent doing that. saddam is no great threat to our oil supply. however, ticking off all the other countries in the region, which is what we are doing with our campaign against him, does have the potential to affect our oil supply.
the arguement of "if they dont like it, then **** em" is common, but tends to be naive. we dont live in a vacuum. we interact with other people and societies.
we want support from jordan, saudi arabia, and other countries in the region. well, you have to give something to get something. in this case, they want us to back off.
for example, ive found that there are 2 types of smokers: one (**** em all type) that will smoke any damn place they please, regardless of no smoking signs, etc and one (cooperative)that only smokes in designated areas, and asks the nonsmokers if its ok.
the first type will get what they want (to smoke) in the short run, but will run into severe problems because of it. namely being shunned, kicked out, and in some cases, arrested. the second type will not get what they want in the immediate, but in the long run, will benefit from his attitude. if someone asks me if its ok to smoke, ill generally say yes, and respect them. if someone just lights up around me, i resent it, and in some cases will ask them to put it out. in the long run, cooperation will get you respect, and as a result, youre more likely to get what you want without severe consequences.
Posted by: -Memnoch-
Hey guys, Before this gets out of hand, A friendly request.
Attack the issue, Not eachother.
If its to hard to comment without attacking eachother- Don't post.
I would be nice to have a thread that didn't actually get closed.
Posted by: Gunslinger
You're right, we do not live in a vacuum.
I was referring to opinions in a more unofficial context. Our interaction with other countries is through their governments. When some person comes in (the reason I used the word citizen) and says he doesn't like American because of this, then I say "who cares." That is what I was referring to.
Posted by: Gunslinger
Anyway, back on topic.
I firmly believe in putting pressure on Saddam. I see him as a threat - and I feel that we should take care of threats before they take it to the next level, and become problems.
Posted by: Null Actor
There has been synthetic oil for ages now, for lubricant purposes. We could easily leave oil behind. And if we still needed some, well, there is plenty in western Canada. And you don't have to bomb people to get it.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Anyway, back on topic.
I firmly believe in putting pressure on Saddam. I see him as a threat - and I feel that we should take care of threats before they take it to the next level, and become problems.
|
Using that same philosophy, drinkers should be arrested for drunk driving, people who watch porn should be arrested for sexual assault, people who use recreational drugs should be arrested for dealing and trafficing, people who get in to bar fights should be arrested for murder.
Sounds great, where do I sign up?
Oh, also forgot to add: People who use the net should get arrested for hacking. People who listen to mp3s should be arrested for piracy, people who invite friends over to watch movies should be arrested for public showings of copyrighted material...
Should I go on?
Posted by: Gunslinger
Nah, you should have stopped before you started, because you aren't using the same philosophy.
By arresting drinkers for drunk driving, and all that other shtuff, we would be following a policy of attacking without evidence, or provocation.
We have both in the case of Saddam. He doesn't allow UN weapons inspectors into facilities. He invades small, defenseless countries, and then sets their oil supply on fire when he gets his ass handed to him. He uses chemical weapons on his own people. Just the weapons inspectors alone is cause enough. It suggests that he's developing weapons of mass destruction, which are a threat to everyone, not just Americans.
So, you aren't using the same philosophy. I addressed this philosophy about 5 posts ago, with the minority report reference. If you haven't seen it, then ask someone who has.
Posted by: -Memnoch-
Did you happen to notice the thread subject?
"What did Saddam Hussein do??"
Yes, I'm gonna direct you to stay on the subject.
Posted by: Gunslinger
Quote:
|
We have both in the case of Saddam. He doesn't allow UN weapons inspectors into facilities. He invades small, defenseless countries, and then sets their oil supply on fire when he gets his ass handed to him. He uses chemical weapons on his own people. Just the weapons inspectors alone is cause enough. It suggests that he's developing weapons of mass destruction, which are a threat to everyone, not just Americans.
|
How much more on topic can it get?
Posted by: Null Actor
The only difference between my arguments and yours is scale.
Anyway, I'd have a lot less issue with this situation if the US was acting on UN orders. As it is, the UN might as well just not exist.
I mean, hell, the US answer to someone? **** EM!
Posted by: Gunslinger
Now I will stand with you on that. I see a fundamental flaw with this UN business......what happens when the US acts outside of the UN's wishes?
Now, I won't claim that being part of such an alliance prevents you from being able to act on your own, but still, it leaves questions to be answered.
Posted by: Null Actor
The UN was created so that when anyone takes action, it is acceptable by the world. It has worked, and would continue to work. However, the US seems content to just ignore them nowadays.
I think this is a very bad thing. Mostly because it sets a precedent. Why should any other country participate with the UN on anything, when the leading member tells it to go take a flying ****?
Bad mojo.
Posted by: Chako
What will happen..the US will be brought up on charges in the eyes of the International court if any war crimes are done.
This will not be so bad because the US does not recognize it. However, those charged had better not get caught on foreign soil because the other nations will be looking for them to bring them eventually to justice. Think Slobodan Milosevic and you will get a sense.
So? what is the question that needs to be answered?
Red is correct...nobody lives in a vacuum. Besides..if the US feels that it can impose its laws on other nations..why should it not be a two way street?
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
The question about what did Saddam Hussein do is simple. He didn't die. He is a target for what he did and who he is. Sept 11th was a wake up call for this country and other countries just don't seem to realize the scope of the problem.
People can bicker morality all they want, but it has no bearing whatsoever on survival. Do you think the Allied powers defeated Germany with their sense of morality? Hell no. Bad military decisions by Germany is the only thing that saved the world.
Passive resistence does not work. This country tried that before WWII and we all see how well that worked. Sept 11th I think changed the Government's mindset on the issue just the same as it changed the people's views on the severity of leaving someone like Saddam in power. A quick review of the facts:
- Saddam has used Chemical weapons and openly attacks civilians.
- Saddam attacks Kuwait against the wishes of the U.N. and leaves it a burning mess.
- Saddam continues to block U.N. weapon inspectors in Iraq.
When Saddam first invaded Kuwait, he should have been taken out then. Sept 11th stepped up the urgency and I think made us realize just how dear the cost could be for leaving someone like Saddam in power.
As for oil, a lot of people think the US deperately needs all that Kuwaiti oil. The Largest oil supplies in the world are on U.S. soil. When the world runs dry of oil, The U.S. will still have tons of it.
Anyway, if you really want something to pin on Saddam, he's being rousted for violating his parole. (Not letting U.N. inspectors do their job.)
Posted by: Chako
Ok..so..when he dies..who will replace him? Will he have nice fuzzy warm feelings towards the
US? How will the other countries in the area react to this judge, jury, and executioner rhetoric.
I do not see the UN wanting his blood...so what gives the US that right? Fear? Paranoia? A
mentality that he must die because he is outspoken against the US? Is he prejudged against
some fears that he is part of the attack. Has 911 become nothing other then a witch hunt to
dispose of world leaders that don't tow the US line? Will North Korea be next?
I know he is no saint. Hell, I am all for his removal if it would help that region..and yet...I am
puzzled at why the US wants his head..and more importantly, why you want his head? Has he
done something specifically towards YOU? If so, what?
The time to get ride of him was back in Operation Desert Storm. If such was the case..would a 911 have happened sooner? Would the world scene be in a worst light then it is right now for the US?
All questions...some with no answers..others with answers to be found.
I am just curious.
Posted by: Gunslinger
I've also wondered who will replace him.
Someone placed there by the US or the UN?
Someone from his regime who is just as bad or worse?
Though the implications are large, I'd rather do what needs to done, and deal with that if and when it comes.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Quote:
Originally posted by Ion Silverbolt
- Saddam continues to block U.N. weapon inspectors in Iraq.
Anyway, if you really want something to pin on Saddam, he's being rousted for violating his parole. (Not letting U.N. inspectors do their job.)
|
Personally I don't care who runs Kuwait after Saddam is gone provided he has no problems with U.N. Weapons inspections.
Do we really have to wait for Saddam to use chemical or even nuclear weapons before we act? Ignoring the signs will only open the door for a disaster. If he wasn't blocking weapons inspectors, I would agree that we should leave him alone. And somehow I doubt he's making taffy and doesn't want anyone to know about it. 
I think the rest of the U.N. has become laxed in their efforts to preserve peace. It's been a long time since the world has had to deal with any type of large scale conflict. America kind of got a reminder of what happens when you let a problem go unchecked. The rest of the world hasn't.
Posted by: Null Actor
Saddam is the symptom, not the problem. Attacking the symptoms doesn't cure the illness.
And I fail to see how the US can use the arms inspection thing as grounds for an invasion... since the US themselves are against internal inspections of their own weapons development laboratories.
Though I suppose I should be used to the US gov'ts hypocrisy by now.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
So we just let Saddam develop biological and chemical weapons and use them against Isreal and other surrounding nations. Oh but he wouldn't use them would he?  Ignoring the problem won't make it go away for sure.
Really it doesn't matter who is leading Iraq, but they must be kept in check before they get out of hand. Why is it the world would rather wait for a catastrophe than to handle the fire when it is easy to put out? All the red flags are up.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
And I suspect just about every country in the U.N. has all sorts of "illegal" weapons. But they have the power, and power is stronger than morality regardless whether or not any morality exists.
Posted by: Null Actor
I've no where said that we should just let him be. It's not dealing with the symptoms that I take issue with, it's the fact that there is no plan for a cure. People are supposed to just believe that strafebombing a country will solve all the problems.
Yes, Saddam must be dealt with. But, the entire situation must also be dealt with, and that is one area where war will never help. The more you just beat on someone, the more they just bottle up their hate and learn to hide it. Then one day it explodes in a way no one had forseen.
All war does is push the target underground, to work in secret. Then no one sees anything coming.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
That long term solution definately sounds appealing to me. Until these countries have an opportunity to be educated, they will never be able to have any control of their own country and power and corruption will always remain in the hands of a dictator or military leader of somekind.
The problem is, no country seems keen on using this positive method for a long-term solution. 
Posted by: Chako
I have been playing devils advocate in this thread.
I do not sympathize in any way shape or form Saddam Hussein or his actions. He does have to go...how it is done, however, is the important part.
With that over with...the method is what bothers me. Nova is correct from my point of view.
Carpet bombing a country really only deals with the now. It is the afterwards that needs careful consideration.
Dealing with short term symptoms, however much it makes one feel great, doesn't solve any problems. It only pushes them back to make a larger one with sometimes unforseen consequences.
Well no matter how much we can argue and debate this topic (it was fun), only time will tell..and possibly history as well.
Posted by: Null Actor
I've always been a proponent of the "go in, remove the government, and set up a new government that is monitored by the UN, and controls education, as well as basic services" method.
Not much more appealing than anything else, but I think there is a chance (however small) of it eventually accomplishing some good. Just making sure that the children get taught human rights and basic decency has a big chance of making things better.
The biggest thing being to make sure that hate is not taught in public.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
INDEED!
We could make it a vacation resort with enough effort. Maybe evn rename it America 2 or New Canada.
Seriously, you're dead on about the education and human rights issue. A separation of Church and State is needed too. Right now, just saying things that don't go with the Koran can get you stoned to death in public. And unfortunatley their treatment of women is also part of that religion.
Posted by: Shalome
Ion, I'll have to correct you on that Qu'ran reference about women, but not in this thread. 
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
"go in, remove the government, and set up a new government that is monitored by the UN, and controls education, as well as basic services" method.
|
Hehehe .... the "go in" part is already a dicey proposition ... not to mention the "remove the government" part ... I doubt any of this can be instigated through peaceful talks either. It all boils down to armed conflict - unless the leader of the government you're trying to remove can be convinced to step down using flowery words...
Posted by: Null Actor
I know there will be armed conflict. Never said there wouldn't be.
I'd just like to see a long term solution plan if armed conflict is required.
Posted by: Heathen
We shoulda finished him the first time. Maggie wanted us to but the US didn't want to.
ho-hum....
Posted by: Fenix2004
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
um, before he does something? well leave out harbors and supports terrorism, since none of us knows that one way or the other. you dont bomb and kill people on the off chance they will do something. that is, if youre an ethical and rational person. thats like saying someone with postpartum depression should be locked up because she will kill her children. the movie minority report is the perfect example. you dont go around interfering in other peoples/societies lives because of what you think they will do. you wouldnt want them doing it to us, would you?
|
I seriously doubt that we will bomb their country. The most logical solution would be to send a few navy seals in and assasinate Sadaam. And like SKYHN said, better safe than sorry.
Posted by: Kdr Kane
Let the flames begin.
The rest of the world is going to have trouble keeping up with what America is doing. Americans work on a totally different time structure. Americans are used to getting it done now and we don't generally have time for the rest of the world to accept what we're doing.
Let's face it. Bush has a minimum of two years left to get things taken care of. Six years if he happens to get re-elected. But, we won't go into that now. He has to do what he feels is the correct direction for the protection of the country as soon as possible.
So, the Canadians and everybody else can whine that the U.S. isn't listening to the U.N. or anybody else all they want. I don't care how much you complain about it now. You'll probably thank us later.
Then again...
you probably won't.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by Fenix2004
The most logical solution would be to send a few navy seals in and assasinate Sadaam.
|
As appealing as that may sound to the American people, it would be a bad precedent and can lead to further international uproar - which is why the US has not gone that route a long time ago...
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
The fact that he won't let any weapons inspectors in is all the reason we should need to act.
Seriously, establishing somekind of educational and cultural influence would probably do a lot of good. Rebuilding Japan after the war did a lot of good for that relationship and they're an impressive economic power to boot.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Quote:
Originally posted by Ion Silverbolt
The fact that he won't let any weapons inspectors in is all the reason we should need to act.
|
That was a while ago--why are we striking now?? War has previously been a factor to breathe life into an ailing economy, could this be the reason for attacking Iraq?? Keep in mind, it is not Saddam Hussein who will pay but the Iraqi people. Fenix seems to believe that a surgical strike involving an assassination would solve the problem. However, this is an absurd suggestion as such a minor change on the infrastructure of such an organization would leave it intact to be lead by any one of his subordinates or, most likely, one of the three sons he has had trained (since basically birth) to rule in exactly the same fashion the father ruled in. Fenix, do your homework.
There is no sense in arguing about whether or not Saddam Hussein is a rat bastard or what would be the best way to handle the situation. The issue I started this thread on is WHY NOW?? I don't believe there is any legitimate cause for the action our military executives are executing. Is it to attempt to jump-start our economy?? I don't feel very comfortable with creating a nation of refugees and corpses just so things won't change here. Is it a long-term plan to create long-standing military installations in and/or near the place where all our oil comes from?? Once again, I'm not comfortable with Big Oil's arm being shoved up the U.S. Government's ass and making it do things like kill people whose only shortcoming is being too oppressed to escape the grip of a dictator. I believe that exposing the true motivations of the impending campaign would be much more engaging than squabbling over the morality of the issue.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
I don't doubt for a second that the government is using the winds of 9-11 to fuel military support against Iraq. They have always wanted to use more military force than they have been able to previously. They don't want another Vietnam though. Now however, all they have to do is say terrorism and the country will back the military.
Quote:
|
I don't feel very comfortable with creating a nation of refugees and corpses just so things won't change here.
|
Exactly how can the life of these people be any worse than it is now?
Unfortunately like Nova stated, we probably won't help them establish a new government and provide them the means to get on their feet. And just bombing them does little good. At least not when it comes to the long game.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Quote:
Originally posted by Ion Silverbolt
Exactly how can the life of these people be any worse than it is now?
|
Do you really believe that being dead or in a state of depravity like what has been seen in Bosnia or near Rwanda is gonna be better than the life they have now??
Posted by: -Memnoch-
Why now?
Because if we see a factory or heavy machinery plant pop up out of nowhere, and it can not be inspected as a possible weapons manufacturing facility ( as aggreed upon in the treaty ) We have the right to assume its a threat.
Not to over simplify this, but its real simple.
He signed the treaty.
What part of unconditional don't you get?
Let the UN inspectors view the suspected sites as aggreed and abide by the treaty.
If not its like the gulf war never ended.
Look at whats being targeted.
We are not carpet bombing or nailing Bagdad.
We are knocking out exactly what we intended on.
Are we just supose to forget about the whole thing and let it pass? ( Ahh .. it's been awhile, maybe things will change if we just leave him alone ) NOT.
We are doing exactly what the treaty provisioned for.
Posted by: Shalome
Then why aren't plans on the table for a UN-led enforcement of the treaty? The US is the one drafting the battle plans, not the UN or any other country.
Posted by: Null Actor
Perhaps now, in order to keep the press off his back.
Posted by: Gunslinger
Why is the UN going to go through all the process of assembling the allies to do it, when the US and Britain have already been doing it for years?
And correct me if I'm wrong here: Isn't the current US/British enforcement of the no fly zone UN sanctioned anyway? I believe it is.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Quote:
Originally posted by AngstMerchant
Do you really believe that being dead or in a state of depravity like what has been seen in Bosnia or near Rwanda is gonna be better than the life they have now??
|
What do they have now? They're already depraved. They don't want Saddam in power any more than we do. They have no choice in the matter though. Obey or die are their only choices.
Personally I'd rather die fighting than to live like they do. The people there have never known a better way of life though. So they have very little hope or incentive.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
That sort of thinking is cavalier, naive and foolish. It is a luxury that is afford by those who haven't suffered through the things that these people have suffered.
Furthermore, it's totally off the mark: why are we declaring war on Iraq now??
Posted by: Shalome
I believe the emphasis Angst is going for is why now?
As in.. what has happened recently that suddenly makes a preemptive strike against Iraq a necessity? Yes, yes, he's a bad bad man, his people are suffering because of things he's done, he has potential weapons of mass destruction, he hates the US.. but if we went and "removed" every foreign leader that fit those qualities, there'd be damn few left -- and a hell of a lot of chaos and US-backed puppet governments (a la the British Empire, circa colonial days...)
::EDIT:: I'm staying out of this one as of now, BTW. Angst and I discuss it quite enough at home.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
The reason of why now is because he can get away with it now. It's been since 1998 that the last UN weapons inspectors have been there. I highly doubt they make toys there now. And with the "War on Terrorism" excuse, it's doubtful he will get much anti-war feedback.
And why not sooner may have to do with the Taliban. Maybe they think that situation is under control enough to focus their attention elsewhere. Bush said a good while back that the fight would not end with just the Taliban. Yeah he probably is using the terrorism excuse to finish old business, but he'll probably get away with it.
Posted by: Chako
Why now?
Because Bush Jr has always wanted to finish what Sr started.
When he got elected..before 911, I knew that Iraq was in for it somehow. It was written as clear
as day.
So, chalk it up to egotistical pissing matches.
Posted by: Null Actor
It's now because of the SEC investigation in to Dubyas financial actions about a decade ago, when this daddy and family friends controlled the SEC.
Wagging the dog is keeping the focus off of the fact that Dubya is a lying stealing cheat.
Posted by: justinious
Why now?
Bin Laden is MIA and Dubya needs a high profile target to take his place. I don't believe his motives to be purely selfish, "wagging the dog" as Nova puts it. He believes he is doing the "right thing", and needs a face for his "Axis of Evil".
I bet Bush Sr. is a proud Poppa though.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
i guess i am rather confused? why kill saddam, he is not buddy buddy with osama, he hasnt threatened anyone since we bombed his army to rubble, he has pretty much been quiet except for asking the sanctions be lifted, i dont remember anyone ever acusing the iraqi government of supporting terroism in anyway, the american weapon inspectors have said the millitary machine is out of service. so we attack iraq for what end. i heard people say we should because of what he might do, that is idiotic. what he might do? what might he do, lets examine that logic. he fires missiles at israel bringing the whole world down on him, he attacks the u.s. bringing the whole world down on him, he attacks anyone brining the whole world down on him. the rest of the west with the obvious exceptions being the u.s. and england do not support millitary action agaisnt iraq, most actually support lifting the sanctions that have killed over 500,000 iraqi civillians since '91. bush wants another target for the "war on terror" since he has lost osama, i thought getting bin laden was the objective. why not bomb libya, quadafi supported terrorism in the 80's, why not virginia the cia supports terroism right now, but now i drift. we will never no peace when we are the aggresors.
Posted by: CETORT
For those of you who "seem" to have such a major problem with what President Bush is doing in regards to Iraq, etc.... i have a question to put to you.
Why don't you all get up off your dead arses, out from behind your computer monitors, away from your precious internet anonymity and actually do something about this issue instead of just coming in here and crying about it all the time?
Posted by: Shalome
Well, I know of at least one person who writes a hell of a lot of letters to her elected officials... Some of them even reply, and not with form letters, either...
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Quote:
Originally posted by CETORT
For those of you who "seem" to have such a major problem with what President Bush is doing in regards to Iraq, etc.... i have a question to put to you.
Why don't you all get up off your dead arses, out from behind your computer monitors, away from your precious internet anonymity and actually do something about this issue instead of just coming in here and crying about it all the time?
|
Umm, kinda presumptuous, aren't you, Cetort?? I mean, if everyone here has devoted this much effort to developing an opinion and voicing it, what on Earth makes you think that people who post in forums like this one don't seek other avenues of expression and influence?? I may have a dead arse but that sort of thinking indicates death in a significantly more important organ.
Posted by: SKYHN
Well I was channel flipping earlier and I just happened to catch on fox news that the U.S. has changed its plans and will not initiate an attack on Saddam/Iraq without "Provocation". So hes safe for now 
Posted by: justinious
Quote:
Originally posted by SKYHN
Well I was channel flipping earlier and I just happened to catch on fox news that the U.S. has changed its plans and will not initiate an attack on Saddam/Iraq without "Provocation". So hes safe for now
|
What's the gov'ts definition of provocation? Launching a Missile at Israel, shooting at planes in the No-Fly Zone, or does Bush just need to say "Saddam provoked me". Don't be fooled, he's still got crosshairs on his head.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by CETORT
For those of you who "seem" to have such a major problem with what President Bush is doing in regards to Iraq, etc.... i have a question to put to you.
Why don't you all get up off your dead arses, out from behind your computer monitors, away from your precious internet anonymity and actually do something about this issue instead of just coming in here and crying about it all the time?
|
*shrug*
I'm Canadian. I'm not responsible for your government.
Posted by: Chako
Same here...I am not responsible for your government
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Yep. Nothing in this thread applies to Canada. 
Posted by: Gunslinger
More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,767235,00.html
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Um yeah, okay. . .this shit is getting out of hand. I think that, given his apparent agenda, maybe we should take this froot loop out of power. He is gathering weapons of mass destruction and has shown he has no reservations about using it on his own thralls. He certainly wouldn't hesitate to use these weapons on Americans or the people of other countries. Which means he is crazy and he wants people to die. If we attack Iraqi, there will be casualties. Well, better them than us. . .
However, I think that we should try to solicit the participation of other U.N. countries to back us up. The question is: are these other countries likely follow a charge lead by Top Monkey W?? I believe it was Belgium or Denmark that heralded our revered Chief Executive on his tour of Europe his first year in office by spelling the following out across 8 Scandinavian butt cheeks:
(F)(@) (C)(K) (B)(U) (S)(H)
Given his behavior in U.N.-related business, most of our U.N. allies have a similar message. It's our foreign policy that lead to 9/11 and that same foreign policy might cause us to invade Iraq al solo. . .
Posted by: JANNA
the united states is the sum total of all UN military power. the rest of the contributing countries hardly amount to much. we REALLY dont need their love and adoration to do what needs to be done. after all it was the mindset of people like those running the UN and most of europe right now that gave birth to a fanatacial nutball called hitler. while hitler was coming to power it was churchill that was campaigning against him and written acroos the buttcheeks of europeans was the term (F)(@)(C)(K)(C)(H)(U)(R)(C)(H)(I)(L)(L) and we see now after several tens of millions dead who was right and who needed to have their butts washed and spanked...
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Speaking of things getting out of hand, did you just draw a parallel between George W. Bush and Winston Churchill??  I believe the next line in this chapter is:
"And the seas will boil and the Moon shall become as blood."
Posted by: Freak
Quote:
Originally posted by AngstMerchant
Um yeah, okay. . .this shit is getting out of hand. I think that, given his apparent agenda, maybe we should take this froot loop out of power. He is gathering weapons of mass destruction and has shown he has no reservations about using it on his own thralls.
|
I thought you were talking about Bush for a second.
Really, its a dumbass idea for the US to attack Iraq. Does anyone want a Gulf War II? Except this time they're playing on Iraq's home turf.
Posted by: Chako
Well I have always said, If you don't have anything nice to say..don't say it.
So I won't say it.
I will say however, that the US isn't the sum total of UN power. You are gravely mistaken Janna.
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
Originally posted by JANNA
the united states is the sum total of all UN military power. the rest of the contributing countries hardly amount to much.
|
um, actually, no we arent. many european countries have required military service, and are quite large. we have the largest single military complement in the UN, aside from perhaps china, but its certainly not even the majority of military might the UN could muster, much less all of it.
arrogance like this is why people hate americans, and i cant say i blame them.
Posted by: Gunslinger
Screw the politics. In less than three years, there will be nuclear weapons in the hands of someone who will not hesitate to use them.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Word up, B.
However, Shalome made a good point in the car on the way home from work this morning: it's just a little one. . . . .j/k. No, she said, "He will be able to make a nuclear device but it will only be a warhead." There are damned few countries that have ICBM technology so unless King-Daddy Poo-Stabber can FedEx it somewhere, it would be no threat to us. . . .however, letting him have even a warhead is a crappy idea.
*mumbles something about comparing Bush to Churchill. . .giggles* 
Posted by: elhior_manwe
there is no reason to attack iraq right now. tyhe weapons inspectors have time and time agian said his weapons facilities have been destroyed and he would not be capable of producing wepons of mass destruction for some time. And another important point ; When has Iraq ever attacked the united states of amerika? Did that happen while I was asleep....Why would he attack the U.S.? It would only assure his destruction... Do you really think Saddam is a Osama type fanatic that would be okay living in caves in Pakistan? As I see it the only real reason to attack
Iraq would be to escalate the "War on Terror" and to shift the focus that we haven't killed or captured osama. We would change the focus to Saddam and attempt to forget about the failed war on terroism. Which like the war on drugs failed before it began. You cannot fight a war of abstract idealism. Though with enough waving of the flag and yelling about patriotism, and enough fear of they jihad coming to your local mcdonalds the american public we support almost anything.
Posted by: Sasha
Sadam hasn't done enough to justify us attacking Iraq. Most probably don't agree but I would like to think that in some dark room in another part of the world someone there is saying the same thing in response to someone's plea to attack us.
Posted by: Null Actor
It's night of the living dead... where long dead topics rise from their graves to devour the living.
Run in fear if you value your life!
Posted by: AltronHGX
That's not scary. What is scary is the fact that it's STILL December!!!
Posted by: Canis Lupus
I was just reading through all the posts in this topic, hehehe ... anyway, the topic has merely been forgotten, but it's far from dead
Posted by: AngstMerchant
(Throbbing Ramones bass line in the background)
I don' wanna be buried. . . .in a thread cemetery.
Anyways, Janna isn't posting much anymore so what's the point??
|
|
|
|
|
