Attack on Iraq- Debate

[captain_drake]

yeah thats nice an all but FEH to you i say

 

we let this guy get away with anything and next you know the rest are going to have nukes and chem bombs,

and thats all we need is to deal with 30 odd countrys that hate us with a passion and would gladly murder themselve for their 79 virgins in heaven -_-

[Zygomaticus]

I'd just like to comment on Admiral's thought that Bush is NOT power hungry.

 

I agree 100%...although we (my family) is a democratic supporter, we weren't unimpressed by Bush's performance this year, and i hardly know or read about any 20th century american presidents who were "power hungry"

 

But what makes you think every single Iraqi understands that? Their not a "free" country, i don't think they have freedom of the press, and nor do i think they have free speech. They listen to what they're told, and what makes you think they don't think Bush is power hungry.

 

In their eyes, they see Americans like many of us see Iraqis.

 

Understand the other side....

[Kylilin]

I don't like Saddam, and I think he is a danger. But I also think he pisses off America because he doesn't do what we tell him to do. It's such a tricky situation, because it puts us at so much risk, and I mean economically as well. His friends are the people who control the world's oil supply, and that is what is keeping us from ripping Iraq a new cornhole. There seems to be no common ground at all. The more we assert our dominance, the more seeds of hatred for America are planted, and that is where terrorism starts.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Lets see if I can put in more counter arguements.

 

1) OK I got some stuff from an independent magazine somewere to counter that I'll find it then post it.

 

2) Trust No-One

3) "According to US laws it is illegal for the government to assasinate anybody, unless war has been declared"

Then why did the CIA try to assasinate Fidel Castro without a decloration of war?

[duder]

I firmly believe that action needs to be taken on Saddam. That isn't the issue for me. The issue is the role of the US and the UN. Any action that is taken needs to be through the UN, NOT the US. I am highly critical of the 'gung ho' approach the Bush administration has taken over Iraq. Talking publicly about regime change is not something the US should be doing, instead they should be putting their case to the UN. If the evidence is so overwhelming then I am sure the UN will make the right decision. The US have no right to be dictating world politics.

I also disagree on the Iraq debacle being linked to the 'War on Terror' (another issue I am hugely concerned about). Saddam Hussein is the recognised leader of that country. By doing so the US is stretching the already strained relationships with the countries involved in the coalition. The US should not see the 'War on Terror' as a carte blanche to attack who they want at will, whilst using 9/11 as a reason why international criticism in invalid.

The European leaders have not so much condemned action in Iraq, but rather have said this is an issue for the UN, the US has no authority over them. If the UN consider military action the best course then Schoeder, Berlisconi, Chirac will comply by sending in their forces.

Bush has placed his main ally, Tony Blair, in a very tough predicament. With his aggressive rhetoric he has placed Blair at odds with the British public. Members of Blair's Labour party have even said that sending in British troops could spell the end of Blair's political career. In the face of an adverse public Blair has still maintained his stance of standing shoulder to shoulder with the US, but I can imagine he cringes every time Bush and the leading Hawks give a speech on regime change. It is crippling his reputation.

One thing is for sure, unilateral action by the US would be a huge mistake. Look at Vietnam. They had no international support and they suffered for it. It will only lead to an isolationist US, putting them at odds with their allies. It would be a giant step backwards in international politics.

 

P.S. Can people try to realise the difference between being liberal and being 'left'. There is a difference.

[Breton]

Originally posted by Artoo

Oh my goodness Qui-Gon you have one of the leftest hippie slanted views I have ever seen, and I watch CNN.

 

Anyway I just have to counter all your pansy terrorist Bull****.

 

1) "I thought you were innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent." - He's been proven guilty. I believe using weapons on his own people counts him guilty.

 

2) "As if you can trust Fox and CNN." - Then who can you trust?

 

3) "' We can't let this madman go on' well you did let the Bush family go on did you not?" - Why do you believe Bush is a madman anyway? We have evidence Saddam is but why Bush? Bush Sr. had one of the highest presidential approval ratings. Someone help me here I belive it was over 80% at one point though. If he is mad and over 80% of the country approved of it, does that make over 80% of the country mad?

 

I believe from all the evidence brought forth that it is you who is erring here.

 

1. Of course no one can know that he has chemical weapons. He would never use them on his own people, where have you heard such crap?

 

2. As I mentioned, Cnn ( i think it was they) made a fake thing about islam people celebrating 9/11.

 

3. Ok war is not a good thing, if you do not agree, then knock yourself down with a hammer. The gulf war could have been avoided, but no, those texas cowboys just had to make war and kill lotsa civillians. Such is the situation today too, those Bush guys just like war too much, I guess it is because they actually belive they cannot lose, and they do not care about civillians in other countries (wich you can see in the afghanian war now). So they are stupid. I would not call 80% of the guys who supported Bush sr. mad, rather weak-minded.

 

Well, if you and the your goverment like war so much, go play Warcraft3 or something instead (not flaming, just recommending a game)

[duder]

1.Say what? Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurdish settlements in the North of Iraq in 1988, there is no denying it. The painful irony of this is that it was US/UK equipment that he used to develop the weapons. You could argue that Saddam is in the position he is now because of the US backing he received in the 8 year war with Iran. If you didn't know that you should do some background reading before you post your opinion.

 

2.Can you name one news source that is unbiased?

 

3.I don't think any sane person thinks war is a good thing, although some people are wise enough to realise it is at times an unfortunate necessity. Burying your head in the sand does not make a problem go away. I'm no fan of the Bush family myself, but as I outlined in my earlier post if the UN and public receive the evidence that the Bush administration say they possess, then action of some form must be taken. But it must be under the authority of the UN.

[Havoc Stryphe]

It is with great reserve I type this post. But such things must be defended, and if not be me than who? So this counsel I give under grievous skies...

 

 

I agree with Duder on this, though it saddens me to know that such a course of action is both slow in coming and littered with red tape. However when that sleeping giant is awakened, I'd not envy Iraq of the coming wrath of the Juggernaut that is the UN. Because then, and only then, will all the free world be behind the assault of Iraq and it's ruthless regime.

 

As Duder said, Hussein, and therefore Iraq, is dangerous and if left unchecked or is watched with blind eye, can/will become a nuclear power or at best a country with biological/chemical weapons of mass destruction either bent towards the destruction of Israel (Remember Tel Aviv and Saddam's rockets during the Gulf War) or the elimination of Americans and her allies (UK, Germany, France They all played a role against Iraq 10 years ago and Hussein's memory no doubt remembers them unkindly).

 

How do we know this? First let us review that ten years ago, Saddam did, in fact, use chemical weapons on his own people. This is not a fact in which we Americans have solely fabricated for our own uses in the giant propaganda machine you call CNN. In truth, our allies are well aware of the event as well. In fact, Saddam did little to conceal or even deny the event having occurred. So, we now that he did in fact possess weapons both chemical and therefore considered weapons of mass destruction as well. Secondly, and most pressing I fear, it proves the destructive and genuinely evil nature and pure evil intent of the Iraqi leader. If he is, sadly, able to carry out such dark atrocities against his own citizens than how much more ruthless will he be to those he "hates"?

 

You may believe that because he at one time possessed biological weapons does not necessarily mean that he still possesses them today. Though possible, and certainly pleasant, this thought is both founded on naivety and denial. If he no longer has these types of weaponry, than why the debate over UN weapons inspectors entering into Iraq without imposing limitations and restraints? It is obvious to any who possess the ability of deductive reasoning that the man has something to hide. Whether it be these detestable weapons of Chemical/biological origin or the ultimate in power and status, nuclear.

 

It is unknown at this time if Iraq has entered into the "nuclear brotherhood" of nations (China, India, Russia, United States etc.) but it is for certain that a man of his integrity, or lack thereof, surely covets that status. You see, for if a nation rises to that status of a "nuclear power", they must be reckoned with. No longer can they bullied around, but most be dealt with diplomatically and with many "talks" and "treaties". Saddam longs and hungers for that respect, nay, that fear among the world's largest countries. So it is logical to assume if he hasn't already begun the race to a nuclear armory, he will for certain soon begin that dark journey. The idea of another "nuclear power" alone in and of itself, is a most disheartening thought, but the thought of it belonging to a man who has killed his own countrymen and has openly admitted his hatred of the Jews and Americans; that is the thought most dreadful. It is this reason why the world must act before he has the capabilities, more than he already does, to render our world a smoldering pit of despair and fear.

 

Having said that, I will take a reprieve from my own animosity as a human being who detests the thought of using biological/chemical weapons on anyone , let alone against innocent civilians, and again lend credence to Duder's earlier stated belief that America should take action only through the UN with the backing of the entire free world, or at least her closest allies. To attack without consent or approval of our allies makes us little better than the powers we move against. But sadly, it seems, the world is content to watch a madmen gather the powers of utter destruction, and when they finally wake from their dreams they will find the world a darker place and the weapons of a madman pointed at their faces.

 

I fear that Iraq will be the bane of the free world. Too small for the world to care what it does, but large enough to sting with a poison most foul. The likes of which may change our world.

[Zygomaticus]

But I also think he pisses off America because he doesn't do what we tell him to do.

 

Said by Kylilin...

 

under what obligation is he to listen to the US????

 

We aren't some international peace keeping organization...we're just another country like theirs. As Duder said, it's the UN that needs to do something about this. Of course they wont fight the war, i guess the US or UK would have to do that, but right now this thing is in their hands.

[Kylilin]

I agree with Havoc, Saddam needs to be eliminated, but through the proper channels. Like I said before, if we assert our dominance, we create a whole new generation of enemies. We need the rest of the world, more specifically, the UN, and more specifically, France, Germany, Britain, Russia, and China, to back our play. Otherwise it becomes us versus them, with us looking like the bullies once again.

[Admiral Odin]

Here is the problem with the UN, Russia is on the security council, Russia backs Iraq. Hence any motion through the UN will be delayed or out right veto, by the Russians.

 

I personally don't care to much for the UN, to much red tape. Sure try and get the UN to listen, but don't let them ditacte what the US should do.

[Breton]

Russia do not back Iraq, Russia is a nice country and have been that for a long time.

 

Do you doubt UN just because Russia is there???

 

Just because of some stupid wars between Russia and US a long time ago does not mean that Russia is bad!

[idiot00001]

To a certain extent, Russia does back Iraq financially. Obviously Russia would not like to lose its trade partner and will be biased against any attack on Iraq.

 

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=search&StoryID=1341146

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Good man.

 

 

EDIT: WAIT WTF DID U SAY ABOUT RUSSIA? STOP PICKING ON US ALL THE TIME! (I am used to it now but still)

 

The reason why we don't suppport an attack is because of our huge oil stuff there (well really that doesn't concern me much, since I don't own one), and BEACUSE WE HAVE YET TO SEE EVIDENCE AGAINST SAADAM HUSSIEN AND HIS GOVERNMENT!

[idiot00001]

The reason why we don't suppport an attack is because of our huge oil stuff there

 

That is what I meant.

 

I did not mean that they were supplying weapons, etc.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Oh............I see............. ...................

[Zygomaticus]

Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3

Oh............I see............. ...................

 

save your breatha and finger enery and just say

 

"oic"

 

get it?

 

[Admiral Odin]

Russia does sell weapons to Iraq, and was/is one of the leading countries that wants to end scations against Iraq.

 

 

I doubt the UN, because it is generally ineffective. Look at some of the actions it has taken. Bosnia-UN personal were taken hostage. Somolia-ineffective until the US sent in Marines. Korea-the UN sent troops, but the main force was the US. Still there is not a permant peace treaty just a cease fire. Labeling the Yugoslav president a war criminal is another instance where they fail to do anything. They wouldn't go in and arrest him, instead they were going to wait until he left the country.

 

The UN is to political, look at Israel. They sit around doing nothing while that country is in at center of many middle east conflicts. Instead of doing something they expect the US to handle it. Also when the UN finally does something, it is usually sanctions which are generally ineffective, and when they send in peace keepers, rarely do they succed if the US isn't involved.

 

As far as I'm concerned Russia is an Enemy of the United States. They provide support to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

 

As I and other people have said Saddam has chemical and biological weapons. Evidence is in history, he used them in the Gulf War, agianst his own people, and the Iran-Iraq war. Weapon inspectors were not allowed at some sites, or had to give notice to which sites they were going to inspect. This means he either: 1.Has those weapons or 2. has the capablity to produce those weapons. We already know that he has not problem using the weapons.

 

 

I still want to know why you are so willing to trust Iraq. What has Saddam done to show he can be trusted?

[Darth Homer]

I think we should just do to him what we did to Col. Kadafi (sp?)

 

He was pulling the same stuff 'till we kidnapped some of his family. Once he realised that we could and would do such things, he quit. It may not work with Saddam, but it'd show him that we could get into his country and do whatever we wanted without his knowledge. His experiance with the Persian Gulf War shoulda taught him not to mess with us.

[Admiral Odin]

The Gulf War shows that his people are afraid of them. Most gave up as soon as they could. Only the Republican Guard seems loyal to him.

 

There was a very good article on Saddam in Reader's Digest.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Originally posted by Admiral

 

As far as I'm concerned Russia is an Enemy of the United States. They provide support to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

 

 

Yeah, and u can shut the f*** up.:

Anyway, if we were an enemy why didn't u nuke us while u had the chance?

 

Why the hell was Red Heat made?

 

Why don't u send your little toy marines to assasinate President Putin?

[Tie Guy]

Well, Russia isn't our enemy i don't think, but i certainly don't count them on our list of allies. Maybe on paper they are. But thats just the governement, we have nothing against th people, CD.

 

1. we don't do things that way

 

2. never seen it

 

3. we don't do things that way. Why do you think saddam is still alive?

[Darth Homer]

calm down, CD

 

MOST people here don't see Russia as our enemy. I certainly don't. Russia doesn't always do what the US gov. thinks is best, but what nation does? (other than Canada...and I agree with Denis Leary, I don't trust those people...they're real nice, real quiet, and live right above us!) I try not to delude myself into believing that the US is the greatest nation that there ever will be and should run the globe, we have our flaws just like everyone else.

 

As for the reason why the US didn't nuke the USSR, well frankly, we were scared to. We launch our missiles, Soviets detect 'em before they hit and launch theirs...the missiles pass each other in space and obliterate both countries. It's what was termed, "Mutually Assured Destruction" and was the entire reason the Cold War was happening. Each country was waiting for the other to "push the button" and thankfully, it never happened. If it had happened, nuclear fallout would have pretty much decimated, if not wiped out entirely, the whole world. Scary stuff.

[Zygomaticus]

Crazy Dog...you must notice that he also said "as far as i'm concerned" which means it is his opinion.

 

One persons opinion is not worth arguing over...

 

Russia may have been an enemy to the US long ago, but so was Britain and so was Germany and so was Japan. But nothing of such enemity goes on now...and it doesn't need to go on.

 

many say, "A friend of my enemy is my enemy" which is apparently the kind of theory that Admiral is using.

 

but i don't believe in that because i feel the following is better, "A friend is a friend and an enemy is an enemy"

[Crazy_dog no.3]

OK, ok, thnx.

 

 

 

*looks at admiral with suspisicion*