IRAQ - What should President Bush do?

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by Divine Spirit

Isnt assasination illegal or something?

 

No but for CIA agents undercover it is illegal for them to do that. A law passed by President Carter prohibits CIA assassination, other than that, nope its not illegal.

[C'jais]

The way I think Americans see this war, is a sort of "pre-emptive strike" on Iraq, to prevent their use of WOMD's.

 

Last time I checked, those same Americans didn't like the idea of having a pre-emptive strike thrown at them back at Pearl Habour. It was done by the Japanese, who believed that USA would threaten the Japanese empire with the entire Pacific fleet located there.

 

It does seem a bit hypocritical to me, but I guess that example is way out of line as well.

 

(No offence to the French and German users of this message board, by the way.)

 

America is the most selfish, bullying and perverse country I have ever seen. They are trying to bully others into accepting their notion of peace, without checking with the rest of the world to see if it's right or not. Hey America, you were founded by Europeans who took the land from natives with slaughter and desecration. So much for equal rights, wussies. And you dare to assume us Europeans owe you anything.

 

The above was a joke. It is this hypocracy that annoys me to no end. I've met several American uses who turns all flamy when you say bad things about their government and country as a whole - if you accept to not getting riled up so easily, proceed with ragging on the European lapdogs as you prefer.

 

Bond: It is unwise to meet American empirialism with British empirialism. It seems as if you're even more patriotic than the 'mericans here. Calm down.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

No but for CIA agents undercover it is illegal for them to do that. A law passed by President Carter prohibits CIA assassination, other than that, nope its not illegal.

 

Assassination is strictly illegal according to UN procedures and the international court of war crimes.

 

If USA ever assassinated Hussein without the consent of the UN, they'd be tossed out as quickly as possible.

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by C'jais

If USA ever assassinated Hussein without the consent of the UN, they'd be tossed out as quickly as possible.

 

Ah my bad.

 

 

And C'jais, you're little rant ( ) about America was untrue. The top people may seem that way but have you ever been here? Its sad that the world gets that impression of America when the only people on the news is the President and the overpaid Congressmen. Thats just the mask of America, when you take it off, it looks pretty good.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

And C'jais, your little rant ( ) about America was untrue.

 

I know. I said it was a joke meant to exemplify K07's stereotyping.

 

I think America is a great nation, but it's foreign politics leave a little to be desired. Just as people judge European countries by their politics, many people in here judge America by it's politics. What everyone forget is that you can't judge a nation's people by politics alone.

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by C'jais

I know. I said it was a joke meant to exemplify K07's stereotyping.

 

Oh ok sorry I didn't see that.

 

Originally posted by C'jais

I think America is a great nation, but it's foreign politics leave a little to be desired. Just as people judge European countries by their politics, many people in here judge America by it's politics. What everyone forget is that you can't judge a nation's people by politics alone.

 

Yea Bush does seem like he wants to control the world... but he does have many people whispering their "advice" into his ears.

[git_sum_stuka]

fine, bomb em if ya want. think about all the innocent people that are gonna be killed. and after that, go bomb another country.

[El Sitherino]

shoot himself right in the head.

[daring dueler]

first off the whole french german thing is crap! france has trade with iraq for oil so if we go in they gave nothing to buy or trade!

 

i honestly think, more time lets saddam think of new ways of hiding bombs. i say we bomb em. and really this is gonna be harsh but there are gonna be sivilain casulties! no matter what , itll happen. now honestlt think which country would you rather have lose life. i know its harsh but its life deel with it.

yeah assination is illegal against the un but if we do it rite they wont be able to prove it:D . and arnt having chemical and biological weapons against the un so iot all evens out.

although bush is not our best president its a hell of alot better than gore could do. if your from the us most agree waiting is ronk i think but you brits or what have you ..... what if this was hapening to your country , would you wait for the un to find nothin again and give saddam more time to make bigger bombs?

[Arkum]

basically, the authority of the UN is being challenged. What i mean by that is that the UN's ability to regulate the world is being challenged. The nations in the UN have to resolve this matter quickly and not stall is what mi trying to say. So far ,they're makin some progress.

 

But I think North Korea is a BIGGER issue than Iraq because North Korea does have nuclear weapons. Iraq may have, but the issue wuth Iraq is Disarmament. they havent done so and the government is getting impatient.

 

What i think is that we should attempt to AVOID war, BUT if we haveto, if it is absolutely NECESSARY to go t owar with Iraq, then we should, but only if it is necessary. In the meantime, we should try to get some cooperation and resolve this matter ina peaceful way.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Commander Bond

As for World War One (in fact, just like World War Two), you sat back on your fat butts enjoying your lovely counrty when, all of a sudden, someone attacks you! Time for you to join in, eh? Well done for finally noticing a World War in progress!!!

Hummmm, either you don't know your history so well, or I dont know my history so well, which means i wasn't paying attention in class all last week........but when did we get attacked to bring us into world war I?

 

And it's not like we didn't know there was a war......we were simply remaining neutral. If that's a crime yell at spain and switzerland as well. THEY were neutral through the entire thing. And they're IN europe where the war took place.

[wassup]

Hummmm, either you don't know your history so well, or I dont know my history so well, which means i wasn't paying attention in class all last week........but when did we get attacked to bring us into world war I?

 

The Germans were using U-boats (submarines) to harass US merchant ships in the Atlantic ocean on their way to and from Europe. Also, in 1917 (i think), German U-boats sank a massive cruiseliner (forgot name, begins with L) almost as big as the Titanic, which had roughly 100 Americans onboard. So, from a certain point of view, Commander Bond is right...

 

As from Iraq, I think this is what the US should do (long one)

 

First, the US should gain as much support from the international community as possible, especially from the EU (European Union, not Expanded Universe) and the Iraqi people. After, they should heat up tensions btwn Saddam and his people and let the people overthrow the government, with the US providing military aid to control the situation and prevent as much bloodshed as possible without becoming too influential in the region. Saddam would either be killed in the ensuing rebellion or be taken prisoner by NATO and charged with war crimes like Milosevic (Yugoslavia). After the overthrow of Saddam’s corrupt regime, The Iraqi people should be introduced to democracy, the theory of a republic, and have themselves set up a working government that adjusts to their own needs without major US influence (like setting up a pro-Bush governor). Let the Iraqi people be their own judge.

 

Saddam regime needs to go, that is a must. Saddam is a bad man, who has done bad things, that is for sure. He and his regime have committed numerous crimes in the past, including the torturing of his own people and even captured POW's. Young women have been gang-raped in front of their own families. POW's that were captured in the Gulf War were beaten, raped, beaten again, forced to sit in an acid bath, beaten once more, and electrocuted. "Interrogation of prisoners" turns into "Beating the living BS out of them" in the eyes of men working under Saddam. So, the ultimate goal is to oust Saddam’s corrupt organization.

 

However, the US needs to first acknowledge and respect the opinions and ideals of the international community. Hello, Mr. President Bush, but the US is not the only nation in this world. There are other people in this world, and to truly pull this mission off as a success we need their utmost support.

 

Why, you ask? Because if we don’t, first, their will be much rebellion and revolt against America among a majority of the world, and second, the Iraqi army will have gained tens of millions of civilian soldiers ready to die for their illegimate and ineffective government. The Iraqi people are poor, they are hungry, they want the restrictions off their backs imposed upon them by Saddam, but they are too afraid or whatever to voice their opinions. All they want is a better life, whether from Saddam or from a foreign intervention. Right now Bush is not guaranteeing them that. They do not know if their lives will improve after a foreign power takes over and establishes a democracy. All they have known their entire life is to live under Saddam. So, if the US cant guarantee them a better life, then of course they will fight to the death to keep their lives as they are right now and stop unpromising foreign intervention.

 

Furthermore, if the Iraqi people are caught in a possible war, then they will be counted as civilian casualties by the international community, whether Bush likes it or not, and therefore will create further dissent and resentment. This could even quell up into the next World War if the world is not careful. All these and more are reasons why Bush and his administration should take this step by step and work as a team with the international community to a common goal, which is ousting Saddam and his very very bad regime, instead of creating tension and strain btwn US and foreign relations.

[ShockV1.89]

Ho hum...

 

Why do these debates always turn into giant WWI and WWII history lessons?

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by ShockV1.89

Ho hum...

 

Why do these debates always turn into giant WWI and WWII history lessons?

 

Because everybody loves history lessons.................

 

 

The L ship you are thinking of is the Lusitania.

[TheHobGoblin]

Originally posted by Commander Bond

How dare you?!?

 

Do you know who the real tyrant is, the real evil dictator? His name is not Saddam Hussain, nor is it Osama bin Laden... no, it's spelt George W Bush.

 

That's just my two pence, but I think that with everyone else here and all over the world who agrees with me could turn that two pence into two million pounds... British Sterling.

 

Rule Britannia and long live the Queen.

 

Guess what Mr.Bond. It's not spelled that way. In fact that isn't correct. Because the evil dictator and the tryant is Saddam and Bin Laden. Bush is fighting back defending. Who told those people to ram the plane in to the WTC? Bin Laden, who told those people to ram the plane into the pentagon? Bin Laden. Yet who supported Bin Laden's attack? Saddam. But , my friend, who fought back defended his country, the people, their dignity? Well fo hell it's not Bin Laden or Saddam. It was George W. Bush. Now if you have a problem with people who defend and fight back then you need to seek some help.

-TheHobGoblin

[C'jais]

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin

Yet who supported Bin Laden's attack? Saddam.

 

I wasn't aware that Hussein supported the Al Queda network.

 

Sourcage?

[griff38]

Originally posted by C'jais

I wasn't aware that Hussein supported the Al Queda network.

 

Sourcage?

 

That 1 came form 11th hour U.S. propoganda. We have heard the Bush admin talk about Iraq & Al Queda for 2 YEARS and just in the last 2 weeks they have been talkin about how the 2 are linked. (polls that week showed the U.S. people would be alot more supportive if they thought there was a link)

 

Bush & Powell claim some obscure radio broadcast gleaned from ten billion radio & cell comunications was Bin Laden talking about supporting Iraq.

 

Now, let me ask you this, Why would Bin Laden send a radio message supporting Iraq THE VERY DAY COLIN POWELL WAS TRYING TO CONVINCE THE SECURITY COUNCIL THEY WERE LINKED?

 

Sounds like Bin Laden is on Bushes side now. Or it was a total fake.

 

You decide.

[wassup]

I wasn't aware that Hussein supported the Al Queda network.

 

Crazy American media...

 

Both Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien need to be brought to justice, along with those people that have helped these evil dictators in their foul plots and schemes. However innocent people just trying to live out their lives do not and can not die in the process of bringing these 2 men and their wicked organizations to justice.

[Psydan]

Wow, Been doing some reading, and I found out that Iraq's government is a republic (wow, I thought it was dictatorship), and that they have like 3 1/2 million men fit for battle (we have like 71 million available). BUT, Our president seems to want to make everyone an enemy(War on terror, Axis of evil speach, etc.) Every major ally says it's a bad idea. Iraq doesn't seem to care about war, and seem to accept it with open arms, especially with Saddam seeming to have weapons that he needs to hide. Is it a good idea? Im beginning to think not...

[El Sitherino]

theres no way hussien and bin laden can be connected. bin laden wants a theocracy ( god run govenrment) hussien wants a dictatorship ( hes in control)

[C'jais]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

theres no way hussien and bin laden can be connected. bin laden wants a theocracy ( god run govenrment) hussien wants a dictatorship ( hes in control)

 

LOL

 

What's stopping the two from connecting?

 

Dictators from since the dawn of civilization has used their "God-given" right to rule as an excuse. Who can oppose the rule of a man who is communicating with the higher powers? How can he be wrong?

 

Look at the world - What does Bush, the Pope and Hussein all have in common? They're devout believers, and they all wield enormous power. Just look at the speeches by Bush - "God is with America!", "God damns the Iraqi people!", I believe in God and he told me a war is necessary!" etc.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by C'jais

LOL

 

What's stopping the two from connecting?

 

I think Bin Laden despises Saddam. Saddam is far from devout Muslim and has too many western habits, such as his love for gambling. I've always thought it ironic that we should attack the one country in the Middle East where the government appears to take precident over the religion. In all other Middle Eastern countries, the government is controlled by religious ideology.

 

In Iraq, for example, there is much more gender freedom than in other states. There is also a population of Christians in Iraq.

 

It doesn't negate the fact that Saddam is a tyrant, but I still maintain that Bin Laden has no love for Saddam. More than for Bush, but not by much.

 

SkinWalker

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by wassup

Crazy American media...

 

Both Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien need to be brought to justice, along with those people that have helped these evil dictators in their foul plots and schemes.

 

If we set a precident for imposing sanctions or military action on every state ruler that rules a country in ways that we disagree with, then we are going to be quite busy over the next few hundred years.

 

Bin Laden certainly deserves the Iron Fist approach, but then he organized a direct attack on American soil as well as other sovereign countries.

 

I'm not saying that I agree with Saddam, but it's clear that he is no more dangerous to the United States than any of 5 or 6 other state rulers. In fact, I would argue that he is less dangerous simply because of the risk of reprisal that he knows of first hand.

 

This soon-to-occur war isn't about terrorists, oil, or weapons-of-mass-destruction. It's about saving face and perhaps one or two hidden agendas by, and for, the Bush Administration.

 

To all those who are not American, please don't judge our country by the actions of a few. True, we voted the current president into office, but history will (most likely) show that we voted his ass out as well. Hundreds of thousands of American citizens recently protested the Bush Adminstration decision to go to war. Bush rebuked this demonstration of democratic freedom as insignificant.... but it clearly bothered him.

 

The voice of reason sometimes cannot be heard right away, but it is being spoken.

 

SkinWalker

[Kurgan]

I'm really not too excited about another war with Iraq. Sure, if the Allied forces played their card right, they could "clean their chronometers" (to quote the general in Star Trek), though I wouldn't be surprised if there was a big chemical "revenge" attack... or launch against Israel at the end (both of which wouldn't be out of the question for Saddam...).

 

The war has so many potential problems with it, far more than a cakewalk like Afgahnistan. More people don't need to die for this...

 

I say use all diplomatic and non-lethal measures to clear this up. Give the weapons inspectors more time, more power, use all available means to bring this to a peaceful end.

 

I swear though if I hear one more person who says "let's nuke the entire middle east" or some other such nonesense, I'm going to get really mad... ; p

 

The US isn't perfect, Iraq isn't perfect, the UN isn't perfect, and neither is any country in the middle east (including Isreal). But that's no reason to commit mass murder. Trust me, there are people out there that seem to believe that this is a worthy solution. THANK GOD they aren't in charge of weapons of mass destruction!

 

 

If we do go to war (again) let's be sure we do it right this time, and prepare for the consequences. Get Saddam out of power, replace him with a democratic government of the people, and rebuild their country.

 

Though, it seems like if we want to avoid more terrorist attacks, attacking Iraq would probably be more likely to set them off, rather than stop them.

 

I'm glad we can still have a mostly civilized discussion around here, btw. Kudos!

[griff38]

Originally posted by Kurgan

 

I swear though if I hear one more person who says "let's nuke the entire middle east" or some other such nonesense, I'm going to get really mad... ; p

 

 

You are a patient person, perhaps if our leaders were as Virtuous as you we would have resolved this by now. But since that is unlikely for the near future, (until we get rid of Bush) war will happen. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, those in power get more, the guilty go unpunished and the innocent suffer.