Iraq is a political subject.
Iraq, again
-
hahaha, what’s worse? A couple of guys getting together to determine the future of foreign policy…? :roll:
-
The situation of leaving NK and going for Iraq reminds me slightly of Lennox Lewis not being willing to fight one of the Klitschko brothers, but fighting weaker opponents.
The only difference ist, that Lewis would lose to Vitali or Vladimir, while the US would still “win” (in a way) against NK.
But otherwise, it’s much the same: You choose the thing that is easier and more money… -
The problem with this entire situation is you liberals are (yet again) scrambling for your next excuse for not taking out Saddam.
First it was “it’s not our job to deal with Saddam.” Then the UN security council voted unanimously in favor of getting involved.
Next it was “well…the inspector’s haven’t found anything.” Then the inspectors DO find something. Now that the inspector’s found something, then liberals automatically come up with “well, it’s not a big enough infraction…”
Now we’ve got “well, what about North Korea!” You expect anybody to take you seriously? It’s blatantly obvious that the liberals are just out there fishing around for their next excuse for leaving Saddam in power.
I mean, c’mon, how long do we have to playcate to this gullible United Nations and their frivilous attempts at controlling a madman?
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
North Korea:
1.) 3rd largest military in the world
2.) Potential to hit both South Korea and Japan with nuclear weapons (at the cost of potentially millions of lives.)The size of the military doesn’tmean it’s a good military. Quality over quantity. The Chinese have the largest airforce but the best airforce is the IAF.
-
True, but if you have the ability to simply “throw” thousands and thousands of troops at us, then there tends to be a lot of bloodshed.
-
The problem with this entire situation is you liberals are (yet again) scrambling for your next excuse for not taking out Saddam.
It surprises me how quickly people are to accuse one of being on the opposite side of the isle. You should realise I am support issues on both sides of the isle, and am by no means a liberal.
As I said before, I am against both a war with Saddam and a war in North Korea. However, there is not a single legit reason for attacking Iraq which cannot be applied, in a greater sense, to North Korea.
So, I am stating simply that, President Bush is going into Iraq for 3 reasons while leaving North Korea alone.
- Oil. All his contributers.
- Politics. An easy war = votes
- Ease. Iraq is not a challenge. There is little chance for something to go wrong. Less risk for Bush.
Now that the inspector’s found something
What have they found? Conventional missles which Iraq is aloud to have. Not only that, but expired, empty, and forgotten missles. The hour the Missles were found, Iraq even insisted they were in it’s weapons declaration. Bush says they weren’t, but of course only Bush and Iraq have seen the original declaration.
The size of the military doesn’tmean it’s a good military. Quality over quantity. The Chinese have the largest airforce but the best airforce is the IAF.[/qupte]
The US has a better Airforce than Israel. Well, Israel does have a smaller area to defend. But overall, the US airforce is much better than Israel’s, as it has the ability to project power (But thats for another thread!).
A madman? No, Saddam is completely sane. His hands may be stained with blood, but he still maintains a degree of rationality. Kim Jon El (Spelling error, I know), however is a Sociopath.
-
First, the U.S. air force is what the IAF is patterned after (they even fly U.S. planes.) THough the IAF is one of the more powerful airforces in the world, they are not nearly as flexible as the U.S.
Second, my big thing about Iraq is that I could support bush if he was pushing for humanitarian (Sadam starves about 50,000 children a year) but he has proven with Afganistan that he is not wiling to put up the tens of billions to put Afganistan back together again (and not Cuban Platt Amendment style but rather NGOs restoring farming abilities and hospitals, and Turkish troops keeping the tribes from killing each other [we should pay turks to keep a couple of divisions in Afganistan])
-
So, I am stating simply that, President Bush is going into Iraq for 3 reasons while leaving North Korea alone.
- Oil. All his contributers.
- Politics. An easy war = votes
- Ease. Iraq is not a challenge. There is little chance for something to go wrong. Less risk for Bush.
Like I said before, if we wanted the oil, we could have it. There’s nothing standing between us and those oil fields! We wouldn’t be wasting our time trying to give Iraq every peaceful opportunity to end this war without bloodshed.
The Iraq situation was developing (and was being logistically planned) before North Korea even declared that it was restarting it’s nuke program. This reminds me of a line from The Sum of All Fears that goes something like this: “I’m not worried about the guy who has a thousand nukes, I’m worried about the guy who’s trying to get one.”
What have they found? Conventional missles which Iraq is aloud to have. Not only that, but expired, empty, and forgotten missles.
Dang, with that kind of innocent & defensive tone, you would make a good Iraqi general. :wink:
The hour the Missles were found, Iraq even insisted they were in it’s weapons declaration. Bush says they weren’t, but of course only Bush and Iraq have seen the original declaration
LOL :P and yet the Iraqi’s wouldn’t even tell us where to find that so-called referal to the missiles inside the declaration. If it’s in there, then show the world…
-
The difference between Iraqui and N. Korea can be summed up in a single word:
OIL! :cry:
The U.S. backed Saddam in Iraq in the 80s because Iran was threatening to conquer Iraq. If Iran conquered Iraq the US would have lost a major supplier of oil. Iran was our enemy because we help to overthrow their democratic government and reinstall the Shah dictatorship. Why? We did that because their was a communist party in the new iranian democracy, and heaven forbid they might win some seats in the government and that might have interuptted the flow of oil.
I am so ashamed to be an American when I hear about the horrible things my government has done to people around the world for oil. :x
Its disgusting that the richest most powerful nation in the world has stooped to the point of installing dictators and overthrowing dictators to maintain our energy supply. If we are truly the greatest nation on the Earth, then humanity truly sucks! Bring on WW3 because the cockroaches that survive the nuclear winter will be more honorable, and noble than the best Americans. The “greatest” nation on Earth.
Death to Humanity!
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
So, I am stating simply that, President Bush is going into Iraq for 3 reasons while leaving North Korea alone.
- Oil. All his contributers.
- Politics. An easy war = votes
- Ease. Iraq is not a challenge. There is little chance for something to go wrong. Less risk for Bush.
Like I said before, if we wanted the oil, we could have it. There’s nothing standing between us and those oil fields! We wouldn’t be wasting our time trying to give Iraq every peaceful opportunity to end this war without bloodshed.
ahhh but Bush is employing barely the loosest of arguments and strategy in order to make this palatable to the more warlike Americans. But by goading Iraq the way he is, i’m kind of surprised that SH is showing the kind of restraint that he is.
Trying to give Iraq every peaceful opportunity to do what? To say “here, come into my country, look everywhere, interview everyone, go nuts”? How has he not complied yet? I’m really curious as to what is so different between now and the end of the Gulf War when the Nato force pulled out that requires that we go in and slaughter a bunch of iraqui’s again. Iraq is being completely compliant as far as i can see . . . maybe if the weapons inspectors actually find something, or if Iraq goes and attacks someone/commits genocide again or something like that, then i can see “going in” . . . .What have they found? Conventional missles which Iraq is aloud to have. Not only that, but expired, empty, and forgotten missles.
Dang, with that kind of innocent & defensive tone, you would make a good Iraqi general. :wink:
well, i’m guessing you’re joking, but really “DS - although we insist that you nearly totally disarm, we will let you keep some weapons to defend yourself with, including short-range missles”
“oh no, thank you Nato - i don’t care if Iran overruns us, we don’t want to keep these missles”. Why would Iraq not keep some (albeit emptied) missles if they were allowed to?The hour the Missles were found, Iraq even insisted they were in it’s weapons declaration. Bush says they weren’t, but of course only Bush and Iraq have seen the original declaration
LOL :P and yet the Iraqi’s wouldn’t even tell us where to find that so-called referal to the missiles inside the declaration. If it’s in there, then show the world…
it may well be a matter of time. Even if they are not in the declaration - who cares? It’s not like they’re “contraband missles”. Really, the US has to do MUCH more than it is doing to commit war on another country at this point. I mean PLEASE. SURELY Bush can show SOMETHING by now. Either Iraq doesn’t have a whole lot going on and Bush is running out of good reasons to march in, or Blix et al. is just not done yet, in which case what harm will waiting a little while do? I mean really, are they going to go attack Israel in the next couple of months just because they’re not currently being invaded?
-
@cystic:
. . . maybe if the weapons inspectors actually find something, or if Iraq goes and attacks someone/commits genocide again or something like that, then i can see “going in” . . . .
By all means lets wait until he commits genocide again! How many people do you think we should stand by and watch him kill? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? Maybe we should wait for a million? I wonder what the Kuaities who lost thier lives in 90 would think of that plan? Or the Kurds that were gassed with “defencive weapons”?
Do we realy need to question the need to remove SH from power? I know it’s a tired analogy, but Hitler could have been stopped by the British/French when he violated international law the first few times.
The longer we wait the more expensive, in dollars and lives, it will be.
-
Zero, read THe Iranians by Sandra Mackey. Iran has never had a democracy and instead has a strong totalarian tradition
CC, Iraq did not say anything about it’s WMD. It didn’t say it destroyed them, it didn’t say it still had them, it said nothing.
-
By all means lets wait until he commits genocide again! How many people do you think we should stand by and watch him kill? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? Maybe we should wait for a million? I wonder what the Kuaities who lost thier lives in 90 would think of that plan? Or the Kurds that were gassed with “defencive weapons”?
There is lots of crimes in the world, the United-States does not want to attack Iraq for some humanist reason. If you want to save lifes, there’s a more efficiant way than to declare a war, help people in need in africa, or asia, but declaring a war against Iraq to saves lifes is a really strange way of thinking, even if i am not blind to Saddam’s cruelty he cannot compare to Hitler. Just think how much you could do with all that money, just think how much people will die in the war, you really think you’ll saves lifes ?
Either Iraq doesn’t have a whole lot going on and Bush is running out of good reasons to march in
Yea, he said he had “proof” this summer, then he (and the brittish governement) publish a loosy report, full of supposition, empty of proofs. Again i don’t say Saddam is clean, but for now there’s nothing convincing, i just see the Americans and the Brittish claming they are irrefutable proof, but they show nothing, and i see a pretty good cooperation from Baghdad. We should gave Blix the time he need and we’ll see, Bush’s impatiance is nothing convincing.
-
By all means lets wait until he commits genocide again! How many people do you think we should stand by and watch him kill? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? Maybe we should wait for a million? I wonder what the Kuaities who lost thier lives in 90 would think of that plan? Or the Kurds that were gassed with “defencive weapons”?
There is lots of crimes in the world, the United-States does not want to attack Iraq for some humanist reason. If you want to save lifes, there’s a more efficiant way than to declare a war, help people in need in africa, or asia, but declaring a war against Iraq to saves lifes is a really strange way of thinking, even if i am not blind to Saddam’s cruelty he cannot compare to Hitler. Just think how much you could do with all that money, just think how much people will die in the war, you really think you’ll saves lifes ?
Either Iraq doesn’t have a whole lot going on and Bush is running out of good reasons to march in
Yea, he said he had “proof” this summer, then he (and the brittish governement) publish a loosy report, full of supposition, empty of proofs. Again i don’t say Saddam is clean, but for now there’s nothing convincing, i just see the Americans and the Brittish claming they are irrefutable proof, but they show nothing, and i see a pretty good cooperation from Baghdad. We should gave Blix the time he need and we’ll see, Bush’s impatiance is nothing convincing.
-
Do we realy need to question the need to remove SH from power? I know it’s a tired analogy, but Hitler could have been stopped by the British/French when he violated international law the first few times.
The longer we wait the more expensive, in dollars and lives, it will be.
I think we should then first remove GWB from power, for the frequent violations of international law done by the US.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Like I said before, if we wanted the oil, we could have it. There’s nothing standing between us and those oil fields! We wouldn’t be wasting our time trying to give Iraq every peaceful opportunity to end this war without bloodshed.
So, we are already at war with the Iraq? We are wasting time to find a solution without bloodshed?
@Deviant:Scripter:
The problem with this entire situation is you liberals are (yet again) scrambling for your next excuse for not taking out Saddam.
Damn man… take a gun, and go there on your own, and shoot whoever comes in your way. You are not better than warlord anywhere in the world. All you know is brute force to “solve” problems your and only your way.
The hour the Missles were found, Iraq even insisted they were in it’s weapons declaration. Bush says they weren’t, but of course only Bush and Iraq have seen the original declaration
LOL :P and yet the Iraqi’s wouldn’t even tell us where to find that so-called referal to the missiles inside the declaration. If it’s in there, then show the world…
Maybe the Iraqis tell us on which page to find it once the US tells about all this evidence that the Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. “If it is there, then show it the world”.
How can you, seriously, turn around one of the most important concepts of western democracy: Any suspect is innocent until proven guilty
This seems to be totally unimportant for this country that still hasn’t signed the ban on anti-person-mines, still tortures, preaches free trade and sets ups tariffs, ignores international laws, spies on allies, has a president the majority didn’t vote etc. Man, the US are the most selfish country in this world, and this is just another example of you trying to bully the world into your opinion.I mean, c’mon, how long do we have to playcate to this gullible United Nations and their frivilous attempts at controlling a madman?
You have to do that so long as you are not directly controlling every other state.
It seems like that one saying which went like “Patriotism is great for America, but not for the rest of the world” can be exchanged to "free trade, democracy, economic liberty are great … ". -
By all means lets wait until he commits genocide again! How many people do you think we should stand by and watch him kill? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? Maybe we should wait for a million? I wonder what the Kuaities who lost thier lives in 90 would think of that plan? Or the Kurds that were gassed with “defencive weapons”?
Or the Saudi’s using US weapons to kill their own people in secret? Or the North Koreans running the largest Concentration camp system since Hitler? Or 100,000 dead of starvation in Ethiopia?
There are a lot of places worse off than Iraq. And, there are a lot of places worse off than Iraq who openly support Terrorism (cough Saudis cough).
Now, heres what would persuade me to go to war with Saddam Hussein.
-
Hardcore, verifiably evidence that Saddam Hussein is supplying terrorists with weapons of mass destruction and/or money.
-
Saddam does something foolish, like Attacking Kuwait again (won’t happen).
North Korea is the most oppressive country in the world. Thats a fact, and we need to do something about it. Does that mean we must go to war? No. It means we need to do something about it.
-
-
Man, the US are the most selfish country in this world,
Then why are you living here if it’s such an awful place?
So, we are already at war with the Iraq? We are wasting time to find a solution without bloodshed?
We’ve been fighting with them for the last 11 years.
Damn man… take a gun, and go there on your own, and shoot whoever comes in your way. You are not better than warlord anywhere in the world. All you know is brute force to “solve” problems your and only your way.
YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH THESE PEOPLE! You peaceniks just want keep placating to this maniac while he accumulates more and more weapons.
How has he not complied yet?
See YB’s post above…
it may well be a matter of time. Even if they are not in the declaration - who cares? It’s not like they’re “contraband missles”. Really, the US has to do MUCH more than it is doing to commit war on another country at this point. I mean PLEASE. SURELY Bush can show SOMETHING by now. Either Iraq doesn’t have a whole lot going on and Bush is running out of good reasons to march in, or Blix et al. is just not done yet, in which case what harm will waiting a little while do? I mean really, are they going to go attack Israel in the next couple of months just because they’re not currently being invaded?
Who cares? That’s your attitude toward all this? Unbelievable.
You’re wanting the same situation that happened with the Cuban missile crisis. Where JFK simply “showed” everyone where the missiles were. That’s not going to happen here…
The difference between Iraqui and N. Korea can be summed up in a single word:
OIL!
The U.S. backed Saddam in Iraq in the 80s because Iran was threatening to conquer Iraq. If Iran conquered Iraq the US would have lost a major supplier of oil. Iran was our enemy because we help to overthrow their democratic government and reinstall the Shah dictatorship. Why? We did that because their was a communist party in the new iranian democracy, and heaven forbid they might win some seats in the government and that might have interuptted the flow of oil.
I am so ashamed to be an American when I hear about the horrible things my government has done to people around the world for oil.
Its disgusting that the richest most powerful nation in the world has stooped to the point of installing dictators and overthrowing dictators to maintain our energy supply. If we are truly the greatest nation on the Earth, then humanity truly sucks! Bring on WW3 because the cockroaches that survive the nuclear winter will be more honorable, and noble than the best Americans. The “greatest” nation on Earth.
Death to Humanity!
Cynical bastard… :wink:
-
You’re wanting the same situation that happened with the Cuban missile crisis. Where JFK simply “showed” everyone where the missiles were. That’s not going to happen here…
Because there is no evidence to show.
YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH THESE PEOPLE! You peaceniks just want keep placating to this maniac while he accumulates more and more weapons.
Your sounding more and more unreasonable every day. Diplomacy works. It has works for thousands of years. Diplomacy takes less time, money, and most importantly, kills less people than war does.
I have said at least a half dozen times in this thread and the previous one already, and I will say this for the last time:
If there is real evidence, of Saddam Hussein actively funding or supplying projects to kill Americans, and I see that evidence, I will be persuaded to go to war, but not before
The Burden of proof lies upon President Bush, not Saddam Hussein. Because so far in, we have not been able to prove that he is actively trying to kill Americans. If anything, I would think he wants to work with American business, not against them.
-
Your sounding more and more unreasonable every day. Diplomacy works. It has works for thousands of years. Diplomacy takes less time, money, and most importantly, kills less people than war does.
Not when you’re dealing with Islamic fanatical terrorists.
Plus, in the case of Saddam, it’s only going to delay the inevitable until another generation has to deal with it. :roll:
Suggested Topics
