TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US VS. Saddam
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter You could define terrorist in such a way as to include Saddam, but what makes you think removing him from power will solve anything? Do you honestly believe that Iraq will become a stable region once he is removed from power?

true, and very good point. all i can say is that right now I feel it is worth taking that chance. in fact i feel it will be more secure after he is ousted. i belive once there is a change of regime it will be looked over by members of the UN and be set up in such a way as to create a more secure, globaly friendly government, as per afghanistan. its not going to be a 'kill saddam then pack up our bags and leave that place in a mess' kind of deal.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancedfarmer the iraqi government claims that over 2 million people have lost their lives due to the brutal supreesion that the U.N. and U.S. especially have placed upon their country..

excuse me for not beliving the iraqi government

quote:

they have many exmples and proof of their claim, and the proof can be found in the media aswell.. last year beginning in march i started watching the actions of the U.S. against Iraq, and even from what i gathered from the American media, they killed hundreds of civilians in 2001 from bombings alone..

not to take away from those 'facts' because i do belive some innocents have been killed from the bombings, BUT there is absolutlely no way in hell you could ever find out how many poeple died from bombings. what, does the US send in poeple to count casualties? no, all the reports come from iraqi sources, the same ones that said 100% of the population of iraq 'voted' for saddam

quote:

Their sanctions have also killed many people...

You can not blame this on the US or anyone else for that matter except for saddam himself. if he were to obey UN command there would be no sanctions. hence, it is his fault the people are dying from the sanctions. he should be concerened about that and actually give a crap.

quote:

George Bush is a terrorist too. So was clinton. So was Bush Sr. So was Reagan. Carter. Nixon. KENNEDY.. every president down the line... TERRORISTS... What to do with terrorists...

no offense but your definition of a terrorist is far beyond any logic. a terrorist in my opinion, is a person or group of people or even a government, that INTENTIONALLY kills innocent civilians for the purpose of achieving a goal of some kind. NONE of the US presidents have intentionaly targeted civilians as part of thier operations.

quote:

gandhi said, "an eye for an eye making the whole world blind".

this is not a case of revenge
but honestly seems to me right now that the world is blind to the intentions of saddam hussien. so i guess the world is always blind wether you take an eye for an eye or dont.

This is one of those issues that I feel strongly about. So here I go...

quote:

And another thing - Bush & Blair spent weeks talking about fresh evidence they had that Saddam was a threat to the world. Have we seen any of this evidence? No! All we get is the same old worn-out rhetoric about how Saddam is a grave threat to world peace and security.

Umm...He has nukes...he has chemicals...he doesn't like us. How much more "fresh" evidence do you need? I mean, once you know they have all these weapons, thats pretty much all ya need from a hostile country. What "fresh" new evidence should we require? A little blip on a radar screen headed toward the US? Would that be "fresh" enough?

quote:

I believe that iraq should be forced to comply with the UN, to get rid of weapons of mass distruction.

And if Sadam were to tell the US & UN that every weapon was gone and let us in his country, do you really think that we would ever be able to find the nukes they have and would still have stored 1/2 mile underground? NO! We'd find those in about 6 months when Sadam gets pissed off!

quote:

what makes saddam worse than bush and his father...?

Do you like America? Do you enjoy living here? umm...thats what makes Bush and Sadam different. Go to Iraq to live for a while and tell me that the 2 are the same.

quote:

I would suggest that this is one of those cases, and that the resources we would spend attacking Iraq would more prudently be allocated to fighting terrorism elsewhere and fighting the underlying causes of terrorism that cannot be removed by brute force.

I've read something very similar to this from some 50 years ago, only the term "Iraq"" was replaced with "Germany". Get my point?



And Trancedfarmer...you seem very unhappy with the American presidents. I have one question...are you American? If so you should no longer be allowed to be. If so, I hesitate to call you my "fellow" American.


As for N. Korea...Yes, they did put Bush in somewhat of a pickle. But come on, they are developing weapons, as is every other country. They are not an imediate threat, or at least not nearly so much as Iraq. N. Korea has the world breathing down their necks if they try something. If Sadam decides to have a bad day though, there is no America. Not to say that N. Korea shouldn't be dealt with, but we can't go attacking every country, we would have WWIII. We now have more than 1 country with Nukes pointed at us. What else is new? It only takes one.

We learned in the last World War that dictators should NEVER be appeased...NEVER. Why after this short amount of time do we forget that?

quote:

excuse me for not beliving the iraqi government no, all the reports come from iraqi sources, the same ones that said 100% of the population of iraq 'voted' for saddam hence, it is his fault the people are dying from the sanctions. he should be concerened about that and actually give a crap. but honestly seems to me right now that the world is blind to the intentions of saddam hussien.

Izzy, I can tell you and I are going to get along very well in this forum!

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb Thank you for this though, there seem to be a few too many people in the States who've adopted the it's us against them mentality toward the Muslims...which is a little too much like the attitude held during the Crusades (and would/will likely be viewed in the same light by future historians if we proceed) for my tastes.

bo shit.

the muslims are the ones pullin a 'crusade'.

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer People die. George Bush is a terrorist too. So was clinton. So was Bush Sr. So was Reagan. Carter. Nixon. KENNEDY.. every president down the line... TERRORISTS... What to do with terrorists...

im sorry but that was a very poor choice of words. these presidents are so far away from the definition of a terrorist that any historian would slap the shit out of you.

ok, my opinion now...

since i just came back from a deployment over there, and probably will get sent back over there sometime @ the beginning of next year, all i have to say is that i don't want Saddam in power, but i also don't want to attack without U.N. support...

The ONLY reason we don't have UN support is not b/c of Bush, or his personal reasons... its all politics. The bottom line is Russia and France get their oil very cheap from iraq, and if the U.S. took over, their prices would go up... that is the ONE reason behind all that.... and for those of you who think the US is attacking iraq is for oil (or to steal their oil), you are WAYYY off... we get our oil cheap enough from saudi (agreements with airbases/oil purchasing)...

I see everyone saying "the UN should just say "get rid of all your weapons or we attack".... well DUH don't you think the US tried to get the UN to say that? unfortunately, like i said, due to politics, Hussein has some big-wigs in his back pocket so a UN-supported mission will never happen... he did that on purpose and he has been working on that since desert storm...

i myself asked "why.. why attack right now, this second?"... and then i realized "shit, we should have attacked years ago"... saddam has been violating the UN resolutions that ended desert storm ten years ago this ENTIRE time!! we should have attacked at least 8 years ago.. there is no lee-way with nuclear weapons & chem warfare.. BTW whoever was talking about the new evidence they found, the reason you haven't heard ABOUT what it is is b/c its classified. its part of intelligence, and we can't go blaring that over the TV can we? Its like if we found the secret hiding spot of bin laden, you think we'd advertise we found it? hell no, man, top secret!

and to webmeister - you seem to have a lot of anti-US sentiment, especially about the attacks in Bali.... you DO realize that has nothing to do with the US, right? i dont understand your problem with the war on terrorism... in my eyes if i were you i'd be madder than ever and FOR the war campaign. BTW your military does not agree with you - i have served alongside MANY an aussie soldier and they are some of the best-trained, most exuberant military i have ever met.... class A people they are, and they have NO problem being out in the desert - they love it out there with us. they hate saddam just as much as we do.

Now, about replacing saddam? i think that will be a chore, but it would still help, no matter how bad the next government will be - the key reason for defeating saddam finally would be to locate and dismantle his weapons... and take him out of power... if you do this, no matter how right-wing the new government is, it will still be experiencing growing pains and trying to "settle in", that there would be no serious hostile-threat...

What i don't understand is this: the world KNOWS saddam has all these weapons of mass destruction... yet nobody seems to care, except for the US. We are as far away from iraq as you can be, and the hundreds of countries closer to iraq don't mind? Everyone thinks that iraq "just hates the US, and will use all its weapons on the US?"???? hello... kuwait didn't do anything to iraq, and ten years ago look what happened to them. You don't have to be on their shit-list to get attacked from them.

what the USA is doing right now is an attempt at preventative warfare... attempting to prevent a huge nuclear or chemical holocaust. Ironically, its oil that is preventing the US from getting full support from the UN, not helping.

^^^^

>JM<

one thing that needs to be looked at is that... US has a constitution... and we all abide by that... the USA is a limited government... while Iraq is an unlimited government, meaning that Saddam can do whatever he wants...


Personally I think what Saddam is doing is bad... and I think he should be removed from power, but only with UN support. The US would lose credibility worldwide... and you bring up a good issue with north korea john... we cant be hipocritical


I think the best alternative is to influence the UN to be more proactive and remove totalitarian governments, that threaten the security of the 'free' world...

I just finished typing, and must say wow to abt... agreed

quote:

Originally posted by SpykeChyld I've read something very similar to this from some 50 years ago, only the term "Iraq"" was replaced with "Germany". Get my point?

Comparing Iraq of 2002 to Germany of 1935 is ludicrous. The Iraqi total military strength is so insignificant compared the the US military strength that they may as well not even have any soldiers. Saddam may not be the most rational guy on the planet, but he's not insane. He wouldn't just launch a nuke at us for fun when we could turn the entire land area of his country into a smoking crater with 1/1000th of military capacity. He might do something stupid like that regionally, but he doesn't present a direct threat to us, and Iraq doesn't have the potential to get to that point anytime in the near future - and when he does become a threat, THEN we can deal with him. By attacking him pre-emptively and without UN support, we deprive any government we instill in the region of legitimacy and thereby ensure even greater instability in the region.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Comparing Iraq of 2002 to Germany of 1935 is ludicrous. The Iraqi total military strength is so insignificant compared the the US military strength that they may as well not even have any soldiers.

Thank you Arbiter, you nicely summed up my feelings on that comparison as well...

Hmm, let's see, is Saddam the head of one of the most powerful militaries of his time?

Not exactly...
Which kind of makes any comparison to Hitler ridiculous IMHO...

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter By attacking him pre-emptively and without UN support, we deprive any government we instill in the region of legitimacy and thereby ensure even greater instability in the region.

I have to agree with Arbiter.

Irak is not really a thread against the U.S. But many americans won't listen. My theory is that before 9/11 the US thought that nothing was really a thread against them. Then as the Al Qaida attacked (many americans didn't knew what Al Qaida was, and they couldn't point out Afganistan in a map) and the US was in shock. And now they thing EVERYONE is a potential attacker. And they think they have the pre-emptive right to attack.

The most clear example is the "axis of evil". If Iran is part of the EVIL, it can attack the US, and so the US has the RIGHT to attack it "pre-emptively". So tomorrow Bush starts thinking that not only Irak, Iran, and N.Korea are part of the evil, but Zenegal, Tunis, and Venezuela, and we're all f*cked up.

Oh, another thing I forgot to mention.

Ask anyone with some understanding about Irak's society and religion, and probably they'll tell u this:

If Saddam is overthrown by the US, the US will install a Puppet Regime. This regime will only last a few years. After that, there will be a fight for power between chiites and suniites. A *bloodly* fight.


�Do u think we can just go there and install a democracy or something like that?

Such an idea doesn't consider how are the other countries in the region, or the historical background of that culture.

A democracy instaled externaly (not caused by an internal process) will fail. A conflict in Irak, between those two islamic groups will de-stabilize the entire region. The entire region would be in risk with such a war.

And if the emerging leader is a religous leader or something, he will be able to influence muslims from other countries, and the impact on neighbour nations will be bigger than you could imagine.

I just hope that this will never happen, but you should understand the risks of overthrowning Saddam.


---
oh, and btw. Bush is not a fool. He doesn't want to go to war because he thinks Irak may be a thread (Al Qaida continues to be a thread, a weak Irak isn't). He isn't doing this for the ppl of Irak neither. So the question is, �what is his real purpose?

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy * Saddam is a terrorist (i can back this up too).

that puts you ahead of the CIA.

quote:

Originally posted by IronDragon that puts you ahead of the CIA.

come on boy, you dont need to be in the CIA to know he's a terrorist, just open up a history book. ill bring up one case, saddam intentionally targeted innocent kurdish civilians in northern iraq with chemical weapons in the 80's. if that doesnt prove he is a terrorist i dont know what does.

quote:

Originally posted by zzleeper After that, there will be a fight for power between chiites and suniites. A *bloodly* fight.

that is one possible outcome but not the only.
where do you draw the line on this. should every ethnicity group and nationalist movement have the right to an autonimus, international recognized coutry? why cant they live in power together as is the case in present day afghanistan? how come the flemmish in belgium dont fight with the more frech belgiums to the south? there are many stable multi-ethnical countries that prosper today (US, canada and basicly every developed country)

quote:

Irak is not really a thread against the U.S.

true america is not in direct threat of iraq, and its quite improbable that iraq would attack america HOWEVER he is an indirect and serious threat agianst america in that he can not be trusted. With his proven arsenal of at least chemical and biological weaponary, what is to stop him from selling it to some terror organization who is willing to target the US? if he starts selling nuclear weapons (which i doubt he has right now) on the black market the implications of this could be catastrophic. there are allegations that he has "diplomatic" with al-queda, three months ago israel had caught an al-queda agent in the palestinian territories that had recieved training IN iraq. and for a more personal view of mine, the IDF intellegence has proven that the iraqi government's money was being used to pay family members of palestinian suicide bombers.

something else we need to think about...

no matter what we may think or say, there are a million other equations and political events happening that we will never hear about. Bush may seem insane to a lot of people for doing "this", but you can't forget the one million and one reasons that we (myself included) will never know. Bush is no idiot - he knows what he's doing, and all decisions do not come down to only him... remember the system of checks and balances, it has to go a long way before anything gets approved....

which means...

there is a lot more to everything than we know.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy that is one possible outcome but not the only. where do you draw the line on this. should every ethnicity group and nationalist movement have the right to an autonimus, international recognized coutry? why cant they live in power together as is the case in present day afghanistan? how come the flemmish in belgium dont fight with the more frech belgiums to the south? there are many stable multi-ethnical countries that prosper today (US, canada and basicly every developed country)

Hatred that has been festering for hundreds of years typically doesn't go away easily. It is not only one possible outcome, but by far the most likely.

quote:

there are allegations that he has "diplomatic" with al-queda, three months ago israel had caught an al-queda agent in the palestinian territories that had recieved training IN iraq. and for a more personal view of mine, the IDF intellegence has proven that the iraqi government's money was being used to pay family members of palestinian suicide bombers.

IMHO this is just not strong enough of evidence to suggest that Saddam would supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. As far as we know, he hasn't so far, and anything beyond that is too speculative to be a reason to go to war.

Guys tone it down a bit please .. discussion/debate is good, flame wars are not.

Bear in mind that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

When I was talking about fresh evidence, I was talking about real proof that Saddam is more of a threat now than he was on 10 Sept 2001. Because I haven't seen any.

ABT: I'm sorry but I think you're quite wrong - Bush is an idiot. OK wait, let me rephrase that - he's not an idiot, but you have to admit he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. Yes he may be surrounded by smart/competent advisors, but he's surrounded by people with similar views; hawks like Rumsfeld, Ashcroft et al. So no, I don't think he knows what he's doing.

As for Bali, you say that that has nothing to do with the US. Then why does your government stand up and say "this attack proves why we should attack Iraq"? I am angry for revenge like you suggest I should be, but that doesn't stop me from thinking clearly and objectively - namely, what does this have to do with Iraq?

Yes the perpetrators of the Bali bombing need to be captured and punished, and yes this does fit in with the war on terror as you suggest. I do support the war on terrorism.

Afghanistan = Taliban = al-Qaeda, this connection is clear. However: to then move on to destroying Iraq and killing Saddam Hussien because he might possibly have some sort of unproven connection to al-Qaeda doesn't seem to fit with a war on terror.

There are many many established terrorist groups in existence that have a far more active role in terrorism than Saddam (and keep in mind it's unclear whether he's linked with al-Qaeda). If this is truly a "global war on terror" then why not target the IRA? Ba'asque separatists in Spain? Qaddafi in Libya? Israel and/or Palestine? Indonesian Islamist terrorist groups? There has been at least four significant terrorist attacks in the Philippines in the last month, yet has Bush has not done a thing.

I saw an interview with him last week on television, asking him about the link between al-Qaeda and Saddam. His response? He stumbled, said ummm and ahhh and errm, then came up with something like "you just can't separate them, because they are inseparable."

IMO it's not so much of a war on terrorism as mandate for Bush to do what he likes - this is why he seems to take so little interest in the Bali bombing.

I suppose it all comes down to a simple choice: whether you choose to believe what your government tells you.

But as I said earlier, all this arguing is largely irrelevant - simply because the decision to war Iraq was made months ago. The entire process since has been about pre-emptive justification and preparing the world for the reality that the US is going to attack.

quote:

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior No blood for oil!

just because Iraq has oil and Afganistan didn't isn't a valid reason not to attack Iraq. You really have to have access to the secret intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs to assess how big a threat they are. I dont have access to that information, so I'm neutral for the moment.

quote:

Originally posted by webmeister Guys tone it down a bit please .. discussion/debate is good, flame wars are not. Bear in mind that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. When I was talking about fresh evidence, I was talking about real proof that Saddam is more of a threat now than he was on 10 Sept 2001. Because I haven't seen any. ABT: I'm sorry but I think you're quite wrong - Bush is an idiot. OK wait, let me rephrase that - he's not an idiot, but you have to admit he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. Yes he may be surrounded by smart/competent advisors, but he's surrounded by people with similar views; hawks like Rumsfeld, Ashcroft et al. So no, I don't think he knows what he's doing. As for Bali, you say that that has nothing to do with the US. Then why does your government stand up and say "this attack proves why we should attack Iraq"? I am angry for revenge like you suggest I should be, but that doesn't stop me from thinking clearly and objectively - namely, what does this have to do with Iraq? Yes the perpetrators of the Bali bombing need to be captured and punished, and yes this does fit in with the war on terror as you suggest. I do support the war on terrorism. Afghanistan = Taliban = al-Qaeda, this connection is clear. However: to then move on to destroying Iraq and killing Saddam Hussien because he might possibly have some sort of unproven connection to al-Qaeda doesn't seem to fit with a war on terror. There are many many established terrorist groups in existence that have a far more active role in terrorism than Saddam (and keep in mind it's unclear whether he's linked with al-Qaeda). If this is truly a "global war on terror" then why not target the IRA? Ba'asque separatists in Spain? Qaddafi in Libya? Israel and/or Palestine? Indonesian Islamist terrorist groups? There has been at least four significant terrorist attacks in the Philippines in the last month, yet has Bush has not done a thing. I saw an interview with him last week on television, asking him about the link between al-Qaeda and Saddam. His response? He stumbled, said ummm and ahhh and errm, then came up with something like "you just can't separate them, because they are inseparable." IMO it's not so much of a war on terrorism as mandate for Bush to do what he likes - this is why he seems to take so little interest in the Bali bombing. I suppose it all comes down to a simple choice: whether you choose to believe what your government tells you. But as I said earlier, all this arguing is largely irrelevant - simply because the decision to war Iraq was made months ago. The entire process since has been about pre-emptive justification and preparing the world for the reality that the US is going to attack.

bro..what saddam did to his own people in the 80's with chemical weapons is more than enough reasons for any anti-terrorism country to act on..your right the list goes on..but one fish at a time..if saddam can act like Bin Laden by hurting thousands of people, arab or not at one time, is enough for ME to wanna duke it out with him..regardless of Bush's standpoint..

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy no offense but your definition of a terrorist is far beyond any logic. a terrorist in my opinion, is a person or group of people or even a government, that INTENTIONALLY kills innocent civilians for the purpose of achieving a goal of some kind. NONE of the US presidents have intentionaly targeted civilians as part of thier operations.

thats exactly what they do

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer thats exactly what they do

please, elaborate on how exactly they do this

quote:

bro..what saddam did to his own people in the 80's with chemical weapons is more than enough reasons for any anti-terrorism country to act on..your right the list goes on..but one fish at a time..if saddam can act like Bin Laden by hurting thousands of people, arab or not at one time, is enough for ME to wanna duke it out with him..regardless of Bush's standpoint..

If killing Saddam were the only path towards world peace, then I can't think of anyone who would oppose the action. Only trouble is, there are millions like him - not all in the same position of power, admittedly, but they all share the same, basic contempt for human life. It's naive to assume that simply because it is only Saddam being head-hunted by the US Government, that he is the most major threat, or at least the only major threat.

If we are going to war with Iraq to stop the terror he's inflicted on his own people, why do we not go to war with other countries who have a shocking human rights record? China, Libya, Zimbabwe, North Korea and in the recent past the Phillipines, Cambodia, Indonesia (with their invasion of East Timor) and Chile? Why does the US turn a blind eye to these attrocities but only launch its "Human Rights" propoganda war against Saddam Hussein?

Or are we scared that he has nukes? Is that the reason we're going in? Then why not invade North Korea, they're part of the axis of evil aren't they? Or what about Pakistan? They have nukes and we know that they've been sympathetic to Muslim terrorists in the past. So why should I be more concerned about the fact that Saddam Hussein might (note the emphasis) be able to produce a nuclear bomb in six months when we know for certain that other hostile nations have them in their posession?

It seems like any reason we can find to invade Iraq, there is another country that we should fear for the same reason. I'll let you speculate on why Bush may be targetting Iraq specifically.

quote:

IMO it's not so much of a war on terrorism as mandate for Bush to do what he likes

"Causes often become the very thing they oppose".

Important point webmeister, and I think we have to ask ourselves where the line between terrorism and "pre-emptive" strikes are drawn. If Saddam Hussein attacked the US tomorrow, which of the two would it be?

You also have to seriously question the motivation behind a "human rights" crusade that is so ready to violate the principles it is intending to protect.

quote:

no matter what we may think or say, there are a million other equations and political events happening that we will never hear about. Bush may seem insane to a lot of people for doing "this", but you can't forget the one million and one reasons that we (myself included) will never know.

Yes, but we could also say that there are a million reasons not to attack Iraq that Bush is aware of, only he refuses to tell us in his eagerness to garner support for his mini-crusade.

We can only speculate based upon what we know, and so far as I'm concerned if Bush isn't giving any genuine justification for this war, then he hasn't got any. I doubt, given his desire for war, that he would withold any reason valid enough to reverse international opinion as it stands at the moment.

quote:

�Do u think we can just go there and install a democracy or something like that?

Yes, exactly.

The question of what to do with the Iraqi nation after the US has won it's crusade seems to have been one constantly ignored or overlooked by the US government. The man who they had lined up (until recently anyway) has been facing an international court in Copenhagen on serious "war-crime" charges I believe (serious charges anyway - he's hardly a nice man). Even after that, given that support for Hussein is still strong in most parts of Iraq (though obviously not in the Curdish areas) you have to wonder how much longer this US instigated regime is going to last, or how successful it's going to be. The Iraqi people, by and large - given their antipathy towards the US - would probably be as keen on having a US led government in their country, as the US people would be on having an Iraqi led government in theirs. It's horrendously naive to assume that ousting Saddam Hussein is likely to reduce future occurances of terrorism, stabalise the Middle-Eastern region or make Iraq into a democratic nation full of happy, Iraqi voters, sympathetic towards the American cause.

In fact, given the fact that most Middle-Eastern countries have spoken out against this war, it wouldn't be unreasonable to presume that such a strike would escalate anti-US sentiment in this region (and indeed across much of the rest of the world). I hardly agree that the Iraqi people will allow themselves to be dictated to by US whim either. If the US installs a puppet regime of its own choosing, then, once again, I'll make the comparison of asking the US civilians here how they'd enjoy having their government selected for them by the Iraqi government? And if the US decide to install a "true" democracy (where the Iraqi people vote for their leader) who's to say that the next guy won't be just as bad as Hussein? Or the guy after him? Especially since they would be elected into an environment that will be, in all likelihood, more antipathetic towards the US then the Iraqi society that exists now?

These things need to be taken into account, especially given the US's rather poor record of replacing governments (should I mentioned the shambles that is the Afghani government or General Pinochet perhaps?).

quote:

I see everyone saying "the UN should just say "get rid of all your weapons or we attack".... well DUH don't you think the US tried to get the UN to say that? unfortunately, like i said, due to politics, Hussein has some big-wigs in his back pocket so a UN-supported mission will never happen... he did that on purpose and he has been working on that since desert storm...

Erm, Hussein did offer unfettered access to weapons inspectors, but Bush said it wasn't enough, and they'd be going to war anyway. Sure Hussein rescinded the offer fairly quickly, but wouldn't you under the same circumstances? The US, firstly, have shown they are uninterested in a diplomatic resolution, and are making a mockery out of the UN as a result. I may hasten to add that it was the US who ordered the weapons inspectors out of Iraq in the first place.

So far as I see it, the diplomatic options have not exhausted, and until they are then there is absolutely no justification for a war that will result in the death of thousands of civilians (both Iraqi and the soldiers from all around the world who will be forced to fight over there). Iraq has shown that it is interested in persuing diplomatic options (i.e. the return of weapons inspectors to Iraqi soil) and the UN has made it quite clear that, at the moment, it is an option that must fully explored before the prospect of an invasion is even raised. It is the US, though, who propogate their pro-war refusing - it seems - to explore any remaining diplomatic options.

If the Weapons Inspection plan falls absolutely and totally through, then there may be some justification for miltary action, but until then I'm not sure why we should even consider the latter course of action.

quote:

saddam has been violating the UN resolutions that ended desert storm ten years ago this ENTIRE time!! we should have attacked at least 8 years ago.. there is no lee-way with nuclear weapons & chem warfare..

Actually, the statistics show that the weapons inspections were incredibly successful up until they were ended by the US:

According to UNSCOM, under their own supervision, they were able to affect �the destruction of 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons agents, 48 missiles, six missile launchers, 30 missile warheads modified to carry chemical or biological agents, and hundreds of pieces of related equipment with the capability to produce chemical weapons.� In addition to this, �the International Atomic Energy Agency categorically declared that Iraq no longer has a nuclear program� and �817 of the 819 Soviet-supplied long-range missiles had been accounted for�.

Seems to me, it doesn't matter how long Saddam Hussein had been violating UN resolutions (when of course, George Bush has violated several - that I know of - since he came into power) because UNSCOM were destroying the weapons at least as quickly as Hussein could create them. I'd go so far as to suggest, that if the American government believes they have a problem with the amount of weapons Hussein has, it is merely because they ended the weapons inspections in the first place.

quote:

in my eyes if i were you i'd be madder than ever and FOR the war campaign.

War is war. Whether it's an American civilian, an Australian civilian or an Iraqi civilian killed in an act of war, the tragedy remains the same. If hearing about the murder of my citizens is justification enough to actively will the deaths of citizens from another country, then I fear for the future of humanity.

I was angry at those who perpetrated the attacks (whoever they may be) but I'm rational enough to distinguish those attacks from the proposed war on Iraq. They're seperate issues, and I don't think that anger is justification enough to wage war on country that has done little to compromise my own livelihood. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm more scared of and angry at George Bush than I am Saddam Hussein. Read into that what you will.

quote:

What i don't understand is this: the world KNOWS saddam has all these weapons of mass destruction... yet nobody seems to care, except for the US.

But don't get me wrong. I am concerned that a man as clearly unstable as Saddam Hussein is in posession of WOMD, which is why I am adament that everything that can be done to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq must be done. I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein should be allowed to walk around unfettered with a nuclear bomb in his back pocket, I'm simply saying that before we even consider the prospect of war, more humane options must be considered and entirely exhausted.

quote:

I have one question...are you American? If so you should no longer be allowed to be. If so, I hesitate to call you my "fellow" American.

So the act of not being blindly patriotic makes you less of an American?

No country is perfect, and only through criticism can a country evolve. Any country that believes its own perfection - or at least chooses to ignore its imperfections - cannot improve, and will make the same mistakes time and time again. Any country that discounts objective criticsm or elects to dismiss it as "jealousy" or "unpatriotic" can never improve itself, nor the planet of which it is inextricably a part of.

I hope you catch my drift.

quote:

Originally posted by JPJH bro..what saddam did to his own people in the 80's with chemical weapons is more than enough reasons for any anti-terrorism country to act on..your right the list goes on..but one fish at a time..if saddam can act like Bin Laden by hurting thousands of people, arab or not at one time, is enough for ME to wanna duke it out with him..regardless of Bush's standpoint..

This point would be a lot stronger if:

1) The US hadn't supplied Iraq with said chemical weapons in the 80's.

2) If the Reagan administration hadn't turned the other way while it was taking place.

If this was really that big of a moral issue than I'd like to think the US would have done something a little bit sooner...

I just don't think that a ruler killing his own people really concerns the US government unless they need an *excuse* to attack them...especially when you look at, for one instance, the people being trained at the School of the Americas in Georgia, who're regularly linked to black operations for bloody dicatorships (who're more friendly to US interests) in Latin and South America.

IMHO the School of the Americas alone really takes away a lot of the moral high ground that the US would like to claim on the terror issue.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.