@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.
