|
US VS. Saddam
|
View this Thread in Original format
| inatrance |
| Whats your stance on US Vs. Saddam? , and why... do you think US is wrong with their want to attack the regime? do you think UN is being blind.. or do you think there is not enough evidence? please provide information sources... thankyou |
|
|
| Verona^My |
I'm actually neutral on an Iraq invasion, but I do think the western world should stick together against Arabian hate & terror.
In the end I would have to have the military intelligence that the President and U.S. congress have to form a real opinion. |
|
|
| Nadi |
| I think the time in which the Bush Administration started pushing for this is really odd, unless theres some big discovery that we don't know about. However I'm pretty sure we all "know" Iraq has weapons of mass distruction, and I'm all for a U.N resolution, as long as its worded in such a way, that Bush can't find a loophole, to get Saddam just because his dad didn't. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| I'm opposed to it on the grounds that I think the costs outweigh the potential benefits. Besides, if we remove Saddam from power, he'll just end up being replaced by a fundamentalist regime. At least his government is relatively secular. |
|
|
| PhaseFour |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I'm opposed to it on the grounds that I think the costs outweigh the potential benefits. Besides, if we remove Saddam from power, he'll just end up being replaced by a fundamentalist regime. At least his government is relatively secular. |
true, true :). i heard about saddam wanting the koran written in blood, but blood to the islamic faith is unclean and should be washed off, on the discovery channel (dont hurt me if im wrong)
but anyway, to me, i think that saddam should be removed, but i dont like bushs go it alone attitude, because thatll be representative of how "selfish" (for lack of a better term) the US is. what annoys me is that bush has a politcal tone towards all of this :-/ |
|
|
| IronDragon |
I would have to say both are wrong to a certain extent
UN-Too quick to appease. The typical argument is that they are wusses, but I have a feeling its because, being a multinational coalition, they are wary of one of their members dominating all of its affairs.
US-While little George is indeed looking out for the US (and other nation's to a certain extent) interest there still is the revenge factor involved (Saddam tried to have his dad killed), the "we're going to do it right now" factor and of course, the fact that Iraq is the second largest oil reserve behind Saudi Arabia. Who wouldn't want to have that?
My opinion-There should be a hard UN resolution demanding unfettered UN inspections AND military consequences if there is no compliance, there should be some way to ensure that force is not resorted to too quickly. Frankly, if Russia, China and France don't back it, I feel the US, Great Britian and Israel should be free to act, but there should be no bitterness with those nations who do not agree with the US led coalition. After all, they are the ones directly antagonizing the world, Iraq is. |
|
|
| PeacefulWarrior |
| No blood for oil! |
|
|
| Juricimo |
| quote: | Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior
No blood for oil! |
:rolleyes: oh please...have you thought about moving to Iraq lately?
| quote: | Originally posted by Verona^My
Arabian hate & terror.
|
carefully choose your words there. Just because it happens that those terrorist and the countries involved are populated by mainly Arab people does not mean, like you made it look like above, that all Arabs involved in hate and terror against the USA.
>JM< |
|
|
| Tranzlucent |
| The U.S. should have taken care of Sadam many years ago... instead they waited. Now... Sadam is only a small part of this global mess... North Korea admits that they "are" working on nuclear bombs... hmmm, is this a ploy??? Makes you think... |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by IronDragon
My opinion-There should be a hard UN resolution demanding unfettered UN inspections AND military consequences if there is no compliance, there should be some way to ensure that force is not resorted to too quickly. Frankly, if Russia, China and France don't back it, I feel the US, Great Britian and Israel should be free to act, but there should be no bitterness with those nations who do not agree with the US led coalition. After all, they are the ones directly antagonizing the world, Iraq is. |
exactly where i stand, well said!
| quote: | Originally posted by Tranzlucent
The U.S. should have taken care of Sadam many years ago...
|
agian this is where i see the UN as the blame for the problem, it was the UN that cried out overkill (especially after the "highway of death incident") and said that the the objectives were completed after kuwait was arradicated. i think it should have continued beyond that to make sure this wouldnt happen agian. whats the difference between america continuing without UN support then and now? some sort of punishment or at least a resolution should be made for how iraq has flagrantly dis-obayed UN command since 92. |
|
|
| Izzy |
dangit, no editing feature...
i meant to say liberated not arradicated, how stupid of me and big difference so worth clearing up :p |
|
|
| PeacefulWarrior |
| quote: | Originally posted by Juricimo
:rolleyes oh please...have yuu thought about moving to Iraq lately?
>JM< |
Is your ass going to be fighting in Iraq if there's a war? |
|
|
|
|
