too political. closed
We should not attack Iraq
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Hmm, I agree that your solution to the situation would be the ideal one.
However, your argument rests weakly on the strong trust that you have in Saddam NOT to use his weapons that he is producing. :o Yes, when faced with his demise, Saddam probably will use his weapons against us. Hopefully, with the right strategic planning and use of our technologies in the battlefield, casualities among allied forces will be minimal, if any.I am sure he won’t use his weapons, as he knows, as soon as he touches them, his land lies in ashes, and his skin will stripped of alive.
For the right strategic planning…. have you heard of Paul Van Riper and the Millenium Challenge 2002? I doubt that the planning done by the US command is really good, and surely not good enough to wage that war.What happens if you’re wrong, and Saddam does have a nuke in six months?
That’s why the inspectors are there. Nukes can’t be built in the back of a van. And: the real danger is not the nukes. Compared to biological warfare, Nukes are pretty nice and civilized: they destroy a pretty well marked area in an instant. The radiation just “blocks” that area from some time, and fallout, well, we had that without bomb falling (this all is considering only a “hadful” of nukes).
Biological warfare: well, diseases don’t stop and know no borders.
Chemical warfare: that can be done in the back of a vanSo, nukes are the least to worry about, IMHO.
This is exactly the same rational that people tried to use during World War II to try and justify America staying out of the war. Our government knew that astrocities against the Jewish people were being commited, yet many people were hard-pressed to act upon it until that attack came onto our home front (Pearl Harbor).
There is a difference between “staying out of a war” which by definition means the war has stareted already, and “starting a war”.
If Saddam raises his arms again and attacks someone: No mercy. Until then: stand on guard, but don’t attack him.
The same arguments you bring here could have been brought during the cold war, but in that time your leaders were sensible enough to know that a war will just bring those weapons into use.I think there’s a common misconception that it’s “all or nothing” with Saddam. If you happen to caught Bush’s speech last night, then you’d know all of the proof that he laid on the table.
i must say, i find that “proof” not proving anything unknown. And, with the rethorics used by Bush, the whole world had to get and now has the impression that it is “all or nothing”, it is “the man” and not “the weapons”.
That’s one of the points why i am opposed to this american call for “action”.Honestly, what will convince you that we need to use military force to oust Saddam from his oppressive regime that he controls? Do you honestly believe that UN weapons inspectors are going to be a success?
Well, i don’t htink you “need” to oust him. And i surely don’T want the US to make “an example”, who knows who you “need to oust” later? Maybe the german chancellor, because he said we won’t follow? You know your legal system, it is built on these examples, and i don’t want to take just a single step into this one direction, of one nation playing the “accusor” (lacking the word) and the judge over others without a trial, and being the henchman itself.
To act this way is everything the US stands against.I cannot understand why you want to put your trust into Saddam Hussein. From what I can understand, it appears that anti-war demonstrators are simply avoiding an inevitable situation that will happen in the future. Only, in the future, the magnitude of devastation is likely to be multiplied exponentially.
I don’t see it that way at all. Watching and guarding is not “appeasing” as done to Nozi-germany. Saddam knows how far he can go since he tried to take Quwait. AS long as you take care you are on the watch, and don’t let this “borders” for Saddam weaken, he is not a danger.
Maybe he is mad, but he is no fool, and he wants to stay in power on all costs (he has proved that often enough): To stay in power, he just can’t take the risk of a war, which would inevitably cost his head (maybe dearly, but he can’t win). -
Funny how this thing goes on:
Even the CIA says, there is no imminent threat from Saddam, and attacking him could push him towards the use of weapons of mass destruction.
The Iraq wants the inspectors back, to the date that was fixed with the UN (19th Oct). They also asked the UN to start with examining the ‘accustions’ by Blair and GWB, concerning weapons of mass destruction, the basis of why those two want a new resolution.
France critized the “oversimplified version of a war good against evil”, but does not want to stop discussions in the UN security council with its veto. War has to be the “last means”, an option only if the Iraq is working against the inspectors.
Russia opposes the new US resolution proposal, as it includes “demands that can’t be met from the start”, and said it will block anything that includes the “automatic” of war.
China keeps quiet, but says the return of the inspectors is a “necessity”.
But most funny is what Bush said:
Iraqi officers who use weapons of mass destruction will be brought before a court for war crimes. That is the kind of thing a US soldier should be exempt from, after the US behavior and bileteral contracts with a few countries, on the other hand, it something that they won’t let happen to Saddam (taken from the previous speeches held by GWB).Well, it is and keeps to be interesting.
-
we should annex Iraq after we blow their gov’t away and get 50 cent gas prices :evil:
-
If all Saddam wanted to do was stay in power, why not had over his weapon cache?
Why all the resistance?The US has and does help countires all over the.
Saddam is a threat, no question.
The initiative should be taken.If funny how people criticize the US for not getting involed in WW2 sooner, and now people criticize the US for there lack of patient with someone who has, for 10 or so years, defied UN resolutions.
It seems that there are damed if they do and damed if they don’t.To suggest that America will go on and topple anyone who disagrees with them, if and when they deal with Iraq, is a fallacy.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
LOL. :lol:
what? then they might surrender.
-
@Mr:
If funny how people criticize the US for not getting involed in WW2 sooner, and now people criticize the US for there lack of patient with someone who has, for 10 or so years, defied UN resolutions.
It seems that there are damed if they do and damed if they don’t.To suggest that America will go on and topple anyone who disagrees with them, if and when they deal with Iraq, is a fallacy.
they are 2 different situations, my friend.
You know too much of WWII for me to point out the reasons, however needless to say Iraq has not, since it was last bombed, eaten up other countries in order to slaughter their citizens to allow the Iraqi’s more room to breath, nor has the Iraqi’s recently bombed other nations, nor have they declared war on anyone (again, recently).
Also it is only b/c i have fleeting respect for Tony Blair and Jon Manley that i have support for any action in Iraq. -
I just want to Bush to turn up the pressure, so Saddam will have to yield full access. If he really wants to “stay alive,” then he’ll do it.
-
I am sure he won’t use his weapons, as he knows, as soon as he touches them, his land lies in ashes, and his skin will stripped of alive.
For the right strategic planning…. have you heard of Paul Van Riper and the Millenium Challenge 2002? I doubt that the planning done by the US command is really good, and surely not good enough to wage that war.First, this is the left’s argument that I love to hear most. You say you’re not putting your trust into Saddam, yet all your arguments prove the contrary. IMHO…once that biological weapon is unleashed in an American city by a rogue al-Qaeda operative, it’ll be too late to “put up our guard.”
You say that Saddam won’t use his weapons? THEN WHY THE HELL IS HE PRODUCING THEM??? :wink: If he doesn’t have such weapons, then why all the cover-up from the Iraqi regime?
Secondly, if there’s any administration that’s capable of defeating Iraq in the swiftest most deadly swipe, it’s this one. The United States military (and government) are even deadlier and more experienced then they were in Desert Storm. And look what happened there…
The same arguments you bring here could have been brought during the cold war, but in that time your leaders were sensible enough to know that a war will just bring those weapons into use.
You’re right. And I’m thankful that our leaders had the intelligence not to attack Russia. But this is a different time, different situation. Saddam is not equal in power to us, whereas attacking Russia would have clearly been a defeat for both sides.
i must say, i find that “proof” not proving anything unknown. And, with the rethorics used by Bush, the whole world had to get and now has the impression that it is “all or nothing”, it is “the man” and not “the weapons”.
That’s one of the points why i am opposed to this american call for “action”.Well, let me answer that with a question:
If a man is beating his wife with a baseball bat, do you simply take the bat away, or do you arrest the man?what? then they might surrender.
We could also just hit them with a giant lazzzzzzer-beam. (In the profound words of Dr. Evil. :) )
AS long as you take care you are on the watch, and don’t let this “borders” for Saddam weaken, he is not a danger.
You can “stay on watch” as long as you want, but the fact still remains…Saddam has WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCITON, and he’s capable of passing them to terrorist groups.
Iraq has not, since it was last bombed, eaten up other countries in order to slaughter their citizens to allow the Iraqi’s more room to breath, nor has the Iraqi’s recently bombed other nations, nor have they declared war on anyone (again, recently).
Actually, Iraq has been firing on American and British fighter pilots in the no-fly zone some 750 times. Seems to me that’s as guilty as dropping a bomb.
-
@cystic:
@Mr:
If funny how people criticize the US for not getting involed in WW2 sooner, and now people criticize the US for there lack of patient with someone who has, for 10 or so years, defied UN resolutions.
It seems that there are damed if they do and damed if they don’t.To suggest that America will go on and topple anyone who disagrees with them, if and when they deal with Iraq, is a fallacy.
they are 2 different situations, my friend.
You know too much of WWII for me to point out the reasons, however needless to say Iraq has not, since it was last bombed, eaten up other countries in order to slaughter their citizens to allow the Iraqi’s more room to breath, nor has the Iraqi’s recently bombed other nations, nor have they declared war on anyone (again, recently).
Also it is only b/c i have fleeting respect for Tony Blair and Jon Manley that i have support for any action in Iraq.They are different situations, but you can see a common theme here.
A head of state, or country or whatever, promising to corporate then not.
Openly supporting terrorist, hiding bio weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
Does a dictator have to follow the same path as Nazi Germany before someone is willing to act?I’ve said it a few times already, how many years time should you give the guy to comply? Its beyond ridiculous already.
The US is acting in defense of its people and it certainly does not need the worlds approval to do so.
The states does not go out of their way to bomb civilians.
Which seems to be the main argument against action in Iraq.
If the US feels that removing Saddam from power is a step in preventing future terrorism against them, then, they should act. -
fair enough.
-
@Mr:
They are different situations, but you can see a common theme here.
A head of state, or country or whatever, promising to corporate then not.
Openly supporting terrorist, hiding bio weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
Does a dictator have to follow the same path as Nazi Germany before someone is willing to act?I’ve said it a few times already, how many years time should you give the guy to comply? Its beyond ridiculous already.
The US is acting in defense of its people and it certainly does not need the worlds approval to do so.
The states does not go out of their way to bomb civilians.
Which seems to be the main argument against action in Iraq.
If the US feels that removing Saddam from power is a step in preventing future terrorism against them, then, they should act.Well said, Mr. Ghoul. :P
-
@Mr:
If all Saddam wanted to do was stay in power, why not had over his weapon cache?
Why all the resistance?Because that is his only “trump card”. If he gives away his weapons, he could not defend himself at all, should the US or any other major power decide to get rid of him for whatever reasons.
The US has and does help countires all over the.
Saddam is a threat, no question.
The initiative should be taken.The US helps countries if they have an interest in them (and they have helped the Iraq). I question that Saddam is a threat as dangerous and imminent as the US government paints him.
If funny how people criticize the US for not getting involed in WW2 sooner, and now people criticize the US for there lack of patient with someone who has, for 10 or so years, defied UN resolutions.
It seems that there are damed if they do and damed if they don’t.I don’t critize the US there. I critize Great Britain for its appeasement policy though.
That would (to keep the historical comparisons) be like giving Quwait ot the Iraq to keep them quiet.
The situation is different today from that time.To suggest that America will go on and topple anyone who disagrees with them, if and when they deal with Iraq, is a fallacy.
Well, it happened too often to smaller/less armed countries. Just have a look at Middle America.
@TG:
I just want to Bush to turn up the pressure, so Saddam will have to yield full access. If he really wants to “stay alive,” then he’ll do it.
Pressure to force cooperation is great, but the pressure given by Bush unfortunately was not that. It more was a “me or him” kind of talk coming from GWB. But i agree with TG there.
@Deviant:Scripter:
I am sure he won’t use his weapons. (snip) For the right strategic planning…. have you heard of Paul Van Riper and the Millenium Challenge 2002?
First, this is the left’s argument that I love to hear most. You say you’re not putting your trust into Saddam, yet all your arguments prove the contrary. IMHO…once that biological weapon is unleashed in an American city by a rogue al-Qaeda operative, it’ll be too late to “put up our guard.”
Even your secret service says that this threat does not exist at the moment, but surely will once the attack is inevitable.
And there is a difference between “trust” and “control”. I don’t trust Saddam, if i did, then i wouldn’t say we need inspectors, as i would believe what the Iraqi government says.
I say we need to and we can “control” him, or better: we can control the amount of “danger” that he can be, by reducing his weapons and research to a point where he is “no danger”.You say that Saddam won’t use his weapons? THEN WHY THE HELL IS HE PRODUCING THEM??? :wink: If he doesn’t have such weapons, then why all the cover-up from the Iraqi regime?
For the first:
Why the hell did and do the USA still produce weapons of mass destruction, even illegal ones?
For the secod:
Why do the US spy on even their allies and friends?You seem to take rights for you that you don’t allow other nations.
Secondly, if there’s any administration that’s capable of defeating Iraq in the swiftest most deadly swipe, it’s this one. The United States military (and government) are even deadlier and more experienced then they were in Desert Storm. And look what happened there…
See above: Millenium Challenge. And have a look at the history books:
German-French war 1870/71, Great War 1914-18, with specail emphasis on the germans perception of how the French would do in 1914.
There is a great difference between a war with a limited goal and a war for total defeat.
Read Tsun Zu (sp?) on that topic if you like.
If you don’t leave your enemy a way “to escape”, you force him to fight for his death. Noone wants to die, so your enemy will draw upon his last reserves, use everything at his hands against you. The losses for you will be much much higher, if you force your enemy to fight to his death.You’re right. And I’m thankful that our leaders had the intelligence not to attack Russia. But this is a different time, different situation. Saddam is not equal in power to us, whereas attacking Russia would have clearly been a defeat for both sides.
Yes, Saddam is not a threat that can destroy you. Then why do you fear him that much? He still posseses (probably) potential to do a lot of damage, though maybe not directly to the US, but to e.g. Israel (for distance reasons).
He is no immediate threat, but can do a lot of damage. Why force him to do the damage?If a man is beating his wife with a baseball bat, do you simply take the bat away, or do you arrest the man?
Who is the wife at the moment?
Seriously: I would take away the bat, then bring some distance between the two, and then examine the case.As well:
Isn’t it christianity that preaches “forgiving”? I don’t say we should “forget” what he did, but he has been (and is being) punished already, and unless he starts something “new” or there is “new proof” of the old cases, any more punishment is against any legal system.
What right do the US have to put themselves over accpeted laws and customs of our western civilizations?As long as you take care you are on the watch, and don’t let this “borders” for Saddam weaken, he is not a danger.
You can “stay on watch” as long as you want, but the fact still remains…Saddam has WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCITON, and he’s capable of passing them to terrorist groups.
Just as the US are in possession of these weapons, and are capable of using them for terrorist attacks.
It kind of sounds that you are envious to anyone who can do that as well, as if you want to have the monoply of weapons of mass destruction.Actually, Iraq has been firing on American and British fighter pilots in the no-fly zone some 750 times. Seems to me that’s as guilty as dropping a bomb.
Who was first, the egg or the chicken?
Iraq fires on fighters, fighters bomb Iraq.
And: why two types of measurement, Iraq the villain and Israel the friend?@Mr:
They are different situations, but you can see a common theme here.
A head of state, or country or whatever, promising to corporate then not.
Openly supporting terrorist, hiding bio weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
Does a dictator have to follow the same path as Nazi Germany before someone is willing to act?There is a difference: Germany was never shown the consequences the non-cooperation would have, until the war broke out. The Allies were giving in to nearly every german claim.
Neither openly supports/ed terrorists.I’ve said it a few times already, how many years time should you give the guy to comply? Its beyond ridiculous already.
as many years as other countries get.
The US is acting in defense of its people and it certainly does not need the worlds approval to do so.
The states does not go out of their way to bomb civilians.
Which seems to be the main argument against action in Iraq.
If the US feels that removing Saddam from power is a step in preventing future terrorism against them, then, they should act.Acting in defense? Well, were did the Iraq attack the US then?
You could claim the fighters again, but would you call shooting at foreign soldiers in your territory “attack”? Couldn’t you argue that it’s the Iraq qho is constantly under attack? (No, that is not my position, but the US are clearly not defending).
Is a pre-emptive strike really defending? Is it defending, because you call an attack a pre-emptive strike? Did Germany never attack the USSR or Poland in WW2 then, just because german media said so?And, you would get the worlds approval with an instant, if you were attacked, just remember Septembre last year.
-
Just imagine:
You face someone, who has a knife in his hand, and it is known that he has not too many objections to using it.
You on the other hand have a gun, and wear protection to otherwise deadly knife-blows (knifes still hurt and injure, but not lethally).
A third guy (and you) suspect that the first might have a gun as well, and wants to body-search the first guy.
The third guy has the right to do the search by some higher institution.What would you as the second guy/girl do?
Shoot the first guy in the head, and then look wether he has a gun, or cover the third guy while he searches the first one?Now, it is like the first guy wants the third to do the search, while you are twitching nervously at the trigger of your gun. Sounds familiar?
-
Kind of sounds familiar.
But if that guy had a vile of VX gas in his hand, I can tell you that I wouldn’t bother searching him. I’d cap him on the spot. -
The Reason Saddam will not just hand over his weapons is twofold. First off, we’ll never believe he handed them all over. Second, those weapons are the only thing stopping Iran from invading.
Why does he build them? Incase his neighbors get them and decide to attack him. Same reason why we built em.
Nuclear Weapons can only be built in very easy to observe conditions. Like Falk said, with inspectors in there, it will be impossible for him to hide a Nuclear Program. The Inspectors were very successful the first time around, dismantling an estimated 95% of his weapons.
With the economy tanking like mad, we’re going to go and spend a trillion on a war that isn’t needed? And hell, I shouldn’t complain, my father sells materials for Cruise Missles. War = Business.
America does not have a plan for post war Iraq. Its going to be Afganistan repeated again. Starts off badly, but the long term result will be Iraq drifting back into chaos. And that gives Iran free reign over the region.
Iran and Sudan sponsor more terrorists. More later, school time.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Kind of sounds familiar.
But if that guy had a vile of VX gas in his hand, I can tell you that I wouldn’t bother searching him. I’d cap him on the spot.But as said above: The Iraq is only able to hurt the US, not able to kill it. The US on the other hand can kill the Iraq easily, that’s why i chose that weapons. It’s just an analogy :)
-
Quote from F_alk"I don’t critize the US there. I critize Great Britain for its appeasement policy though.
That would (to keep the historical comparisons) be like giving Quwait ot the Iraq to keep them quiet.
The situation is different today from that time."My point is, people like to bitch about the US reguardless of what they do.
Quote from F_alk "For the first:
Why the hell did and do the USA still produce weapons of mass destruction, even illegal ones?
For the secod:
Why do the US spy on even their allies and friends?You seem to take rights for you that you don’t allow other nations. "
Why did they? The cold war is why, and it made most Eurpoean countries safer because of it. How far do you think Russia would have went if not for the US?
America has been down sizing its nuclear weapons ever since the Wall came down.
Your sadly mistaken if you think the US is the only “friendly” nation that spys on its allies.
I’m willing to bet every nation is “guilty” of it.Quote from F_alk"Seriously: I would take away the bat, then bring some distance between the two, and then examine the case."
What if its the 10th time he’s hit her with the bat? He’s done it again and again over the years.
Quote from F_alk"Just as the US are in possession of these weapons, and are capable of using them for terrorist attacks.
It kind of sounds that you are envious to anyone who can do that as well, as if you want to have the monoply of weapons of mass destruction.Come on! you know dam well the US doesn’t use terroist tactics. Its silly of you to even make that statement.
It kind of sounds like you are suggesting we (international community) let any dictator, with a shady past, have access and the means to weapons of mass destruction.Quote from F_alk"as many years as other countries get."
What other countries are you referring to?Qutoe from F_alk"Acting in defense? Well, were did the Iraq attack the US then?
You could claim the fighters again, but would you call shooting at foreign soldiers in your territory “attack”? Couldn’t you argue that it’s the Iraq qho is constantly under attack? (No, that is not my position, but the US are clearly not defending).
Is a pre-emptive strike really defending? Is it defending, because you call an attack a pre-emptive strike? Did Germany never attack the USSR or Poland in WW2 then, just because german media said so?And, you would get the worlds approval with an instant, if you were attacked, just remember Septembre last year."
Defense of future terrorist attacks.
I said nothing about any fighters, sorry.
Don’t know what your saying about WW2 Germany media.??
Does the US have to wait for another terrorist attack before it is OK with everyone?Again, The US feels Iraq is a cog in the terriost threats against them.
They have every right to “defend” against that.I curious, why are you ( that being anyone) against action against Iraq?
I don’t undestand what the outstanding reason are?
It seems clear to me ( if you havn’t guessed) something has to be done. -
we could just hit them with a gaint lazzzzzer beam
no theres little flying robots 2"by2" that have a camera wich susidely crash into things and blow them up with a lot of power, could be used agansit hussain
-
I agree with Ghoul, pre-emptive strikes can be very good things. In 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against the Arab countries that resulted in the Six Day War because their intelligence had found that the Jordanian and Egyptian militaries had put their forceson joint command and they were preparing for a full scale offensive with the Syrians and the Iraqis into ISrael. This situation is similar, except that the US wants to dismantle weapons of mass destruction, which I think is good enough reason for a pre-emptive strike.
-
what about after Iraq… north korea,yeman,africa?
Suggested Topics
