Not my #s…
just my emphasis!
:-P
:-)
We should not attack Iraq
-
Yanny, you are operating under the assumption that we have to capture and occupy Iraq. All we have to do is take down his command nervous system, maybe destroy some armor. Anti-Sadam forces can take care of the rest.
Its not like we have to destroy and capture the entire Iraqi army.
-
You’re right, cystic crypt. We should sit down and discuss it with Saddam over tea and biscuits. I’m sure the psychopath would be very cooperative. I mean, he simply uses chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds, but we can still discuss his threats and tyr to reach a civilized agreement. When Los Angeles is wiped out, we’ll see what you’ll have to say.
Sorry about using Los Angeles, Moses, I forgot you live there and it makes a good example.
If LA got wiped out?
Look, what we are talking about it wiping out millions of people b/c of one nut job, and his exacting revenge on a country that has messed about in the middle east a few too many times. So LA gets obliterated vs. Iraq gets obliterated? Is that what you’re asking me?
The world needs to wake up to more positive, less knee-jerk/band-aid solutions than it has been applying. So far the answers have been “give them weapons, blow them up, bomb them, apply crippling sanctions”. I think that some places could use a dose of “leave them the hell alone”, or “let’s look at a non-bombing solution to this problem”.
Bizarrely, i’m with Yanny on this one.by the way, don’t knock tea and biscuits. That may be just the ticket sometimes. Maybe some poison in his tea . . .
-
I’m nto sayng wipe out IRaq and flatten every living thing. I’m saying dismantle his government whlie trying to inflict as minimal losses as possible. He would inflict as high losses as he could. That’s where the US and Iraq differ. We should remove him and try to help Iraq recover without imposing American ideals on the people.
-
If LA got wiped out?
Look, what we are talking about it wiping out millions of people b/c of one nut job, and his exacting revenge on a country that has messed about in the middle east a few too many times. So LA gets obliterated vs. Iraq gets obliterated? Is that what you’re asking me?
The world needs to wake up to more positive, less knee-jerk/band-aid solutions than it has been applying. So far the answers have been “give them weapons, blow them up, bomb them, apply crippling sanctions”. I think that some places could use a dose of “leave them the hell alone”, or “let’s look at a non-bombing solution to this problem”.
Bizarrely, i’m with Yanny on this one.Whoa, I have no idea where you got the “wiping out millions of people” statement from. Even the most liberal estimates don’t even come close to that! As for the other “alternatives” option (tea and biscuits to some), Bush said so himself, no attacks would be made if Saddam is willing to let UN inspectors inside of Iraq for NBC inspections. So far Saddam has been negligent and unwilling to cooperate. I also like to add another to your list of “answers.” Let them invade a country [Kuwait] and threaten the economy of the US before we do anything about it. Let them continually support a wrongful dictator willing to condemn the Western Powers and commence a holy war.
BTW: Los Angeles will stand a thousand years! :wink:
-
Saddam got into power somehow; he has support. Somebody (and I’ll bet it wasn’t us) wanted him in power, who are we to say that he shouldn’t? And moreover, who is to say that we are more right than Saddam is? I’m not saying I agree with the little dictator’s ideas, beliefs, or actions, but we cannot judge Iraq becuase it doesn’t conform. If Saddam was truely terrible then there would be a revolution (they aren’t terribly hard to come by in the last century, they can’t be that difficult) and a new government would be put in it’s place. Why are we so quick to replace other people’s governments? We aren’t the ones that should be doing that, the oppressed themselves have that honor.
-
There are many people living in Iraq, especially the Kurds, who want Saddam out of power. He tests his new weapons on Kurds. We have to attack Iraq for humanitarian reasons as well. It is not as easy nowadays to conduct a revolution in a country. Pinpoint aerial bombings, bioogical, nuclear and chemical weapons make it more difficult for the civilians to rise up against the government because they can be mass executed much faster.
-
Saddam got into power somehow; he has support. Somebody (and I’ll bet it wasn’t us) wanted him in power, who are we to say that he shouldn’t? And moreover, who is to say that we are more right than Saddam is? I’m not saying I agree with the little dictator’s ideas, beliefs, or actions, but we cannot judge Iraq becuase it doesn’t conform. If Saddam was truely terrible then there would be a revolution (they aren’t terribly hard to come by in the last century, they can’t be that difficult) and a new government would be put in it’s place. Why are we so quick to replace other people’s governments? We aren’t the ones that should be doing that, the oppressed themselves have that honor.
OMG. You gonna say the same thing about Osama Bin Laden? He doesn’t conform, but we should leave him alone right? Who are we to judge his actions? Pleeeeease. Wake up and smell the coffee….
-
To me it just seems like America on occassion acts like the master of a dog. He regularly beats the dog, disciplines it with no rational pattern, trains it poorly, and starves it off and on. Then when the dog snaps, the master has it killed.
Bombing and invading - the classic American kneejerk reaction (unless it’s, say, WWII in which case the reflex takes a while). -
This whole idea of not being able to judge other nations because we don’t understand them is a late 20th century form of Pacifist garbage that is used to stop fighting. All it does is escalate the problem, which America has a history of doing. By not getting involved early, America suffers attacks such as Pearl Harbor and September 11. You’re right that America is not perfect, and that it’s horrible to have to crush any enemy regime and to kill people, but other choice is there? When they are coming to get you and you have to make a choice between you and them, you’re going to pick yourself because people have an inborn instinct of survival. Bush doesn’t want to horrible attacks during his presidency, so he’s opting to stop the problem of Iraq before it begins. I say let him do so.
-
CC, so we regularly beat, discipline with no ration patter, starve, and poorly train Iraq?
-
@cystic:
To me it just seems like America on occassion acts like the master of a dog. He regularly beats the dog, disciplines it with no rational pattern, trains it poorly, and starves it off and on. Then when the dog snaps, the master has it killed.
Bombing and invading - the classic American kneejerk reaction (unless it’s, say, WWII in which case the reflex takes a while).That might make sense is somewhere else. But here in reality, Saddam is not a product of us, didn’t belong to us, and his actions are not a result of us.
-
@CC:
To me it just seems like America on occassion acts like the master of a dog. He regularly beats the dog, disciplines it with no rational pattern, trains it poorly, and starves it off and on. Then when the dog snaps, the master has it killed.
CC, just a few problems with your Analogy. Exactly how are we trying to discipline it [Iraq] with no rational pattern? What is our current “discipline” (neglect) and what is a rational pattern? If you ask me, our foreign policy hasn’t done enough. When’s the last time we regularly “beats the dog?” I’m interested in seeing if “regularly” doesn’t mean “sparingly” in reality. A better metaphor would be a dog that attacks other dogs (or cats), forcing the “master” (assuming this dog even listens to us and we are even “masters” henceforth) to put it to “sleep” (at least the current Iraqi regime).
@Emu:
This whole idea of not being able to judge other nations because we don’t understand them is a late 20th century form of Pacifist garbage that is used to stop fighting.
Warning! Political Correctness is contagious! :)
Saddam got into power somehow; he has support. Somebody (and I’ll bet it wasn’t us) wanted him in power, who are we to say that he shouldn’t? And moreover, who is to say that we are more right than Saddam is? I’m not saying I agree with the little dictator’s ideas, beliefs, or actions, but we cannot judge Iraq becuase it doesn’t conform. If Saddam was truely terrible then there would be a revolution (they aren’t terribly hard to come by in the last century, they can’t be that difficult) and a new government would be put in it’s place. Why are we so quick to replace other people’s governments? We aren’t the ones that should be doing that, the oppressed themselves have that honor.
I think Emu God answered this fairly well. Saddam has support from his militant loyalist - no doubt about it. When starting a revolution in which the dictator has control of the army (and a powerful one it is) - it’s generally not a good thing. This is especially true when your have many different factions opposing Iraq with no clear guidelines, agenda, or alliance unity. Also, Saddam has a great propaganda campaign at manipulating the people (ex. hatred of the “Great Satan” AKA George Bush and hatred toward Jews) and quickly silencing those who oppose him.
-
Less force may be the way to go. Have the CIA like kidnap Sadam and his family, and maybe his top generals, and give the pro-democracy forces loads of cash.
-
Yea, that’s probably the most feasible plan. It’s not black and white here people, there are shades of gray. Our choices aren’t just destroy Iraq or do nothing, it is possible to just take out Saddam and replace his regime. Why are people under the assumption that America wants to go in and turn Iraq into a parking lot?
By the way, this is izcoder. I changed my s/n.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Our choices aren’t just destroy Iraq or do nothing, it is possible to just take out Saddam and replace his regime. Why are people under the assumption that America wants to go in and turn Iraq into a parking lot?
Yeh, since when have you heard Bush preaching for the total destruction of Iraq at any means possible? The main object is to knock out Saddam and replace his regime - NOT to demolish Iraq or whatnot. Bush suggested that Iraq would not be invaded if only Saddam let UN Inspectors back in Iraq. So far the news has been bleak.
Less force may be the way to go. Have the CIA like kidnap Sadam and his family, and maybe his top generals, and give the pro-democracy forces loads of cash.
Doubtful. This is merely a “quick fix” to the situation that won’t have very many far reaching implications - save anarchy maybe. What’s not to prevent one of Saddam’s generals, his loyal followers, or another, far worse tyrant from coming home and claiming Saddam’s throne? What do you expect to do with Saddam afterwards? Execute him? Hold him for ransom? Feed him dinner? Brainwash him? What? Then lets not forget the power vaccum that follows. With Saddam out of the picture, the situation in Iraq might deteriorate even further as various foreign powers (ex Iran), political leaders, and tribal warlords vie for power.
-
Americans want a quick and easy solution to all problems. Just take take out Iraq and make more “parking space”. They don’t want to deal with the aftermath of our actions. Afghanistan is old news. It’s almost to the point where no one cares. Didn’t we win that months ago ??? That would be the standard response. Raise Iraqi cities to the ground. Then what. What about all the dead and destroyed lives, the dying and suffering, the refugees, the political vaccuums, etc., etc. Americans don’t want to think about these things. Turn off the TV and forget about it. This is the mentality here in New England. Again, I do not endorse such feelings. Not everyone believes in this manner, but it staggers me to see how many do.
I know this is a little rough on my fellow Americans. It seems that no one really wants to deal with foreign policy until it affects us directly (9/11). Then, bomb 'em and it’s Miller Time. Back to our lives, our jobs, our houses, our kids, etc., etc. Never mind half a world away people live in war-torn areas, in poverty, with disease, starving…
Just close your eyes…
-
@Field:
Americans want a quick and easy solution to all problems. Just take take out Iraq and make more “parking space”. They don’t want to deal with the aftermath of our actions. Afghanistan is old news. It’s almost to the point where no one cares. Didn’t we win that months ago ??? That would be the standard response. Raise Iraqi cities to the ground. Then what. What about all the dead and destroyed lives, the dying and suffering, the refugees, the political vaccuums, etc., etc. Americans don’t want to think about these things. Turn off the TV and forget about it. This is the mentality here in New England. Again, I do not endorse such feelings. Not everyone believes in this manner, but it staggers me to see how many do.
I know this is a little rough on my fellow Americans. It seems that no one really wants to deal with foreign policy until it affects us directly (9/11). Then, bomb 'em and it’s Miller Time. Back to our lives, our jobs, our houses, our kids, etc., etc. Never mind half a world away people live in war-torn areas, in poverty, with disease, starving…
Just close your eyes…
That’s exactly the point I’ve been tyring to make since I started posting in this thread. It’s historicla repitition. America didn’t do much in World War 1 until the Lusitania sank. In World War 2, it didn’t acitvely start fighting Fascism until Pearl Harbor. And now September 11th has finally convinced America to fight terrorism. It’s much harder now. Decades ago America could have crushed terrorism in its infancy, like it could have done to Fascism in its infancy. The time has come to break the chain of historical events.
BTW, to all of you who are saying that Bush simply wants a war for his political interests, that is not true. If it were, Bush would pick a target that America would have to spend lots of time fighting, like China or Russia. That would help solve the economic problems because as we all know, war cures depression, but it takes a war worth fighting to truly do that and Iraq won’t give such a big fight.
As for kidnapping Saddam, that is not possible. Last I heard, he had taken some of his most loyal advisros and made them have plastic surgery to look like him in case of an emergency. A way to make sure he can live on in case he were to die in some sort of accident. How can the CIA capture dozens of Saddam clones so easily? I say call in the Mossad to have him assassinated. If they could almsot have their spy as President of Syria, find Saddam’s closely guarded nuclear reacotr and wipe it out, assassinate terrorist leaders, then surely killing Saddam wouldn’t be too hard for them.
-
If we do end up invading Iraq, we should make them like us ala Japan. Install a democracy, have it support American values like Freedom. We should do that in Palestine. And NOrth Korea. Iran. China.
But first Canda…
-
@TG:
@CC:
To me it just seems like America on occassion acts like the master of a dog. He regularly beats the dog, disciplines it with no rational pattern, trains it poorly, and starves it off and on. Then when the dog snaps, the master has it killed.
CC, just a few problems with your Analogy. Exactly how are we trying to discipline it [Iraq] with no rational pattern? What is our current “discipline” (neglect) and what is a rational pattern? If you ask me, our foreign policy hasn’t done enough. When’s the last time we regularly “beats the dog?” I’m interested in seeing if “regularly” doesn’t mean “sparingly” in reality. A better metaphor would be a dog that attacks other dogs (or cats), forcing the “master” (assuming this dog even listens to us and we are even “masters” henceforth) to put it to “sleep” (at least the current Iraqi regime).
Keep in mind that America has been influencing events in the middle east since well before 1990. America (read: CIA etc) has been mucking about in the middle east throughout the Iran-Iraq war, and well before then. If only it were so simple as “Iraq attacked Kuwait and then we attacked it back” - then America might have some morally high ground here. Attacking Iraq would be viewed by the international community as a high-handed bit of bullying intended to make George Bush Jr. look like he’s completing the work his father began.
No, there has been warfare, feuding, and meanspiritedness (as well as goodness, generosity, and peace) in the middle east since the beginning of time. I think that America should long ago have paid attention to Gene Roddenberry’s “Prime directive”. At least then She would not be in the position of having so much hatred (mis)directed at her.
Please keep in mind that i am sympathetic to America - who knows - i may well live there one day (in spite of many of my friend’s and acquaintances protestations to not take my degree to the States). I am just afraid that this Texas gunslinger is biting off more than he can chew. -
THe U.S. is the most powerful country and therefore everyone’s favorite topic, including Fisternis and Falk.
Suggested Topics
